Dem. Anti-Fracking Plan part of Wider Effort to Push Bad Solar

clintonsolar_edit2

During Sunday’s Democratic debate, Hilary Clinton joined Bernie Sanders in a far-left attack on fracking. The Wall Street Journal posted her entire response to a question about fracking regulation:

By the time we get through all of my conditions, I do not think there will be many places in America where fracking will continue to take place. And I think that’s the best approach, because right now, there are places where fracking is going on that are not sufficiently regulated

Sanders, whose socialist agenda is much less hidden, simply answered, “No. I do not support fracking.”

Both responses illustrate what the WSJ is calling the Democratic candidates’ “War on American Energy.” It’s interesting, coming from a party that pushes its agenda to the poor, that they would want to stop a process that reportedly saved families $32 billion in 2012 alone. Fracking has furthermore been proven to be a lower risk to the environment than originally believed.

Why would Democrats want to push the end of an effective energy source that saves their constituency so much in their monthly bills? The obvious answer is that the party wants to further renewable energy sources. While renewable energy is a noble cause. their reasons may be less than admirable.

Clinton’s solar plan has been well-documented, as has her funding from solar interests. While solar energy is a great plan, solar companies are currently selling inefficient technology to their customers at a high installation price. Clinton’s plan benefits the interests of those funding her campaign while hurting low-income energy consumers who  will have to either pay exorbitant fees for solar installation or watch as gas prices balloon astronomically with the death of large-scale fracking.

High-income Americans may be able to install solar without much concern and begin collecting subsidies from utility companies by selling unused energy back to them. But for non-solar customers, those subsidies will mean higher monthly rates to balance the losses of the utility companies compiled with the higher cost of traditional energy.

On the Conservative side, legislators are working with utility companies to further a plan being introduced across Arizona, among other states, to change the way that solar customers pay for energy usage. By replacing the current net metering plan with demand charges, Republicans hope to take away unfair subsidy incentives and drive down solar installations until the companies can develop efficient technology at a fair price.

Clinton continues her move to the far left, following Sanders popularity, and the effect is an idealistic voter base that may be unaware of the reasons behind her efforts to force solar energy on the nation at a time when it could be disastrous for the middle and lower classes.

You may also like...

Twitter Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com