February 4, 2016
There are essentially two kinds of environmental initiatives – the kind that are legitimately geared to protect the planet, animals, and humans and the kind that are anti-progress, de-industrializing, and based on political ideologies. Whenever one examines the positions of Hillary Clinton, it is easy to see that the latter occupies the vast majority of her environmental stances while the former rarely enters into the equation.
Such is the case with her support and promotion of fracking. While Clinton constantly promotes her fantasies of a de-industrialized America on the altar of disproven man-made CO2 based Global Warming theories, the destruction of whole drinking water supplies, landscapes, and ecosystems is buoyantly promoted.
The environmental watchdog organization, Food and Water Watch released a short description of the toxic effects the process of fracking – using pressurized water, sand, and toxic chemicals with which to break open shale deposits in the earth.
Food and Water Watch describes just a few of the dangers of fracking in the following way:
Affordable access to clean water is a public health issue and a human right. Fracking requires large amounts of fresh water in order to extract natural gas from the ground – about five million gallons of water per well. That water is mixed with sand and toxic chemicals, including over 100 suspected endocrine disruptors and carcinogens. Wastewater from fracking and water that escapes from fracking wells can pollute our streams, lakes and rivers, and ultimately our drinking water.
Many families living near fracking have found their well water polluted to the point that it is no longer drinkable. And water respects no boundaries: water that’s polluted by fracking can potentially affect people living in a wide area. As one of our precious natural resources, we can’t afford to irreversibly pollute fresh drinking water.
. . . . .
The sand used in the fracking process includes silica dust, which pours out of fracking sites and into the atmosphere in large clouds. A recent review of the public health impacts of drilling and fracking noted that these silica dust clouds have been associated with tuberculosis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, kidney disease and autoimmune disease.
Fracking also releases carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, benzene and other illness-causing pollutants into the air around communities near fracking sites.
. . . . . .
Any short-term economic benefits that communities may get from bringing in fracking are outweighed by the social and economic disruptions they experience. In addition to the health risks to people whose water is polluted, communities see increased demand for emergency and other social services, as well as increases in crime and sexually-transmitted diseases. Heavy trucks that transport materials cause noise pollution and damage to public roads. Declines in property values are common to the extent that affected families are unable to sell their homes and move away. Fracking also hurts local tourism and agriculture.
Fracking has also been linked to an increase in earthquakes, a claim supported by a study conducted by the US Geological Survey which identified eight states where an increase in earthquake activity was associated with fracking operations. 
Earthquakes, poisoned water, wasted resources, and ravaged ecosystems will never get in the way of Hillary Clinton and the interests she clearly serves, however.
As Lisa Hymas wrote in her article for Grist magazine,
Hillary Clinton never actually said the word “fracking” during her keynote address at the National Clean Energy Summit in Nevada on Thursday, but she still clearly laid out her views on the technique: She’s all for it. She says it needs to be conducted and regulated properly so it doesn’t cause excessive environmental harm, but she believes that can be done. Which puts her totally in line with President Obama, and out of line with most of the environmental community.
During her address, Clinton spoke about the great promise of renewable energy and energy efficiency, for our economy, our national security, and the climate. We need to “build a safe bridge to a clean energy economy,” she said. And when she said the word “bridge,” you knew what was coming next:
Now part of that bridge will certainly come from natural gas. There are challenges here to be sure, but the boom in domestic gas production is an example of American innovation changing the game, and if we do it right, it can be good for both the environment and our economy. With the right safeguards in place, gas is cleaner than coal. And expanding production is creating tens of thousands of new jobs. And lower costs are helping give the United States a big competitive advantage in energy-intensive energies. …
But to capitalize on this boom, we have to face head-on the legitimate, pressing environmental concerns about some new extraction practices and their impacts on local water, soil, and air supplies. Methane leaks in the production and transportation of natural gas are particularly troubling. So it’s crucial that we put in place smart regulations and enforce them, including deciding not to drill when the risks are too high.
That last line, the one about deciding not to drill, is the only one in the natural-gas section of her speech that elicited any applause from the audience.
Mariah Blake of Mother Jones goes even further to point out how Clinton not only supported the practice of fracking, but actually lobbied for the industry all across the world. Blake writes,
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.
Clinton … sent a cable to US diplomats asking them to collect information on the potential for fracking in their host countries. These efforts eventually gave rise to the Global Shale Gas Initiative, which aimed to help other nations develop their shale potential. Clinton promised it would do so “in a way that is as environmentally respectful as possible.” But environmental groups were barely consulted, while industry played a crucial role.
It should not go unreported that Clinton has also supported offshore drilling and sided with Congressional Republicans by voting to help open up Gulf Coast areas to the process.In late 2011, Clinton … promised to instruct US embassies around the globe to step up their work on energy issues and “pursue more outreach to private-sector energy” firms, some of which had generously supported both her and President Obama’s political campaigns.
Ironically, fracking is one issue where Clinton has not flip-flopped either in practice or in campaign speeches. Even on the 2016 campaign trail, Clinton has refused to disavow her previous support of fracking, instead opting to remain silent about the issue for as long as she possibly can. 
On her campaign website, Clinton states that, in regards to environmental policy, “There is no Planet B.” Apparently, Clinton is doing everything in her power to make us wish there was.
Brandon Turbeville’s new book, The Difference It Makes: 36 Reasons Hillary Clinton Should Never Be President is available in three different formats: Hardcopy (available here), Amazon Kindle for only .99 (available here), and a Free PDF Format (accessible free from his website,BrandonTurbeville.com).
 “Why Fracking Is Dangerous.” Food And Water Watch. http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/water/fracking/why-fracking-is-dangerous/ Accessed on September 7, 2015.
 Pantsios, Anastasia. “8 States Dealing With Huge Increases In Fracking Earthquakes.” Eco Watch. April 24, 2015. http://ecowatch.com/2015/04/24/usgs-fracking-earthquakes/ Accessed on September 7, 2015.
 Petersen, M.D., Mueller, C.S., Moschetti, M.P., Hoover, S.M., Rubinstein, J.L., Llenos, A.L., Michael, A.J., Ellsworth, W.L., McGarr, A.F., Holland, A.A., and Anderson, J.G., 2015, Incorporating induced seismicity in the 2014 United States National Seismic Hazard Model—Results of 2014 workshop and sensitivity studies: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2015–1070, 69 p., http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ofr20151070. ISSN 2331-1258 (online) http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2015/1070/ Accessed on September 7, 2015.
 National Clean Energy Summit. Website. http://www.cleanenergysummit.org/ Accessed on September 7, 2015.
 Roberts, David. “Natural Gas: It’s A Hedge, Not A Bridge.” Grist. January 7, 2013. http://grist.org/climate-energy/natural-gas-its-a-hedge-not-a-bridge/ Accessed on September 7, 2015.
 Hymas, Lisa. “Where Does Hillary Clinton Stand On Fracking?” Grist. September 5, 2014. http://grist.org/climate-energy/where-does-hillary-clinton-stand-on-fracking/ Accessed on September 7, 2015.
 Blake, Mariah. “How Hillary Clinton’s State Department Sold Fracking To The World.” Mother Jones. September/October 2014. http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/09/hillary-clinton-fracki Accessed on September 7, 2015.
 Adler, Ben. “Here’s What A Hillary Clinton Presidency Would Mean For Global Warming.” Mother Jones. April 13, 2015. http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2015/04/hillary-clinton-climate-change-president Accessed on September 7, 2015.
 Schor, Elana. “The Holes In Hillary’s Climate Plan.” Politico. July 27, 2015. http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/the-holes-in-hillary-clintons-climate-plan-120682 Accessed on September 7, 2015.