Last night, Hillary Clinton seemed to endorse an “all-of-the-above” energy approach, saying natural could be a “bridge” fuel which may upset her radical friends on the Environmentalist Left
October 10, 2016
Will Clinton’s Natural Gas “Bridge” Upset The Environmentalist Left?
At Sunday night’s debate, the presidential candidates received their first question on energy in either debate. Hillary Clinton appeared to take an “all-of-the-above” approach, referencing natural gas as a “bridge” fuel.
“We are, however, producing a lot of natural gas, which serves as a bridge to more renewable fuels,” Clinton said. “And I think that’s an important transition.”
The comments, though, are sure to upset the Environmentalist Left – they take the extreme position that the U.S. should not be using natural gas at all.
Bill McKibben has recently said that anyone who supports “a new fracking field” is a climate denier, and last year called anyone who invests in fossil fuels “despicable.”
Bold Alliance founder Jane Kleeb, a McKibben ally, has vowed to press Clinton and Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) on their support for natural gas as a “bridge fuel.”
But even President Obama’s top science advisor has criticized this view on the Environmentalist Left, calling the Keep It In The Ground movement “unrealistic.”
Will the natural gas “bridge” serve as another wedge issue between Clinton and the radical Environmentalist Left?