WaPo: "The fantasy extremism of Sen. Bernie Sanders. He would prosecute oil executives 'for the destruction they have knowingly caused' (he 'welcomes their hatred') and phase out carbon-neutral nuclear power. The Vermont independent would ban the fracking of natural gas, which is — if you control the methane emissions — a useful transitional fuel from dirty coal to clean wind and solar."
“Sen. Sanders calls us criminal and Vice President Biden says he would put us in jail, but it would be criminal not to produce the life-sustaining energy that enables a healthy, safe and modern lifestyle,” said Kathleen Sgamma, president of Western Energy Alliance. “Without oil and natural gas, people can’t get to school and work, the lights go dark, smartphones cease to exist, medicine cabinets and grocery store shelves go bare."
"In effect, the shale gas boom is acting like a tax cut, putting more money back in families’ wallets. The Council of Economic Advisers recently found that the shale boom saves U.S. consumers nearly $203 billion annually—about $2,500 for a family of four."
"A fracking ban would also have adverse effects on the environment. Policies that needlessly restrict energy supplies in the U.S. won’t stop consumers from using oil or natural gas, whether in the U.S. or elsewhere. Instead, production will merely shift to places where the environmental standards aren’t as rigorous. Any decision to significantly curtail America’s energy output will be a gift to Russia, Saudi Arabia, and the rest of OPEC."
Shellenberger: "Nuclear energy and natural gas have reduced carbon emissions far more than solar and wind. Why, then, are the people so apocalyptic about climate change so opposed to them?...Before progressives were apocalyptic about climate change they were apocalyptic about nuclear energy. Then, after the Cold War ended, and the threat of nuclear war declined radically, they found a new vehicle for their secular apocalypse in the form of climate change...
Apocalyptic environmentalists like Sanders, Thunberg, and Extinction Rebellion insist that if we don’t enact their agenda, industrial civilization will come to an end. But if they are so concerned with protecting industrial civilization, why do they advocate solutions that would end it? ...
After all, if nations were to simply use natural gas to transition to nuclear, there would be little need to stop traffic in London, moralize about the virtues of foregoing meat, flying, and driving, or deploy renewables."
CHUCK TODD question: "You want a total ban on natural gas extraction, fracking, in the next five years. The industry, obviously, supports a lot of jobs around the country, including thousands in the battleground state of Pennsylvania. One union official there told the New York Times, quote, "If we end up with a Democratic candidate that supports a fracking ban, I'm going to tell my members that either you don't vote or you vote for the other guy." What do you tell these workers, it's supporting a big industry right now, sir?"
BERNIE SANDERS: "What I tell these workers is that the scientists are telling us that if we don't act incredibly boldly within the next six, seven years, there will be irreparable damage done not just in Nevada, not just to Vermont or Massachusetts, but to the entire world. Joe [Biden] said it right: This is an existential threat. You know what that means, Chuck? That means we're fighting for the future of this planet."
In fact, fracking — or “hydraulic fracturing,” in more technical terms — has helped the U.S. reduce its carbon emissions by allowing the energy industry to harness vast reserves of clean-burning natural gas.
Last year alone, U.S. emissions fell by 2 percent, in the midst of an economic boom where Americans were producing and consuming more, thanks to a switch from coal to natural gas, much of it made available through fracking. The shift to renewable energy is a minor factor compared to natural gas. The U.S. is virtually unique among all industrial economies in achieving this environmental, economic feat.