We would all welcome the use of drilling technology that did no harm and left fossil fuels in the ground while tapping the always-on heat stored in Earth’s core. But, even if we aren’t fracking, and we don’t intend to produce gas or oil, I’m skeptical that we are capable of punching holes through the aquifer without creating paths for nasty stuff to migrate. Though I’m less sanguine than the authors, here is the hopeful article.
Twenty Years of Harm – No Safe Way
“Twenty years after the first gas well was fracked on the Renz farm in Mount Pleasant Township, Washington County, a body of evidence points to the possible correlation between the drilling technique and health harms, ranging from cancers, respiratory ailments, lower birth weights, and cardiovascular disease.”
20 years on, fracking’s potential health impacts eyed
Editor’s note: This is the fourth in a series of stories reflecting on 20 years of gas drilling in Southwestern Pennsylvania. Twenty years after the first gas well was fracked on the Renz farm in Mount Pleasant Township, Washington County, a body of evidence points to the possible correlation between the drilling technique and health […]
Our politicians evade the issue because there is a lot of money in play. They don’t want to draw fire from special interests when elections are close. We ignore the fracking danger at our own peril.
Consider the Cost
Those dismissing the environmental impacts of fossil energy want us to ignore the enormous future costs. We must not burn fossil fuels because the damage they cause will show up decades later. This video shows visual simulations of the future flooding caused by sea level rise. Places my grandchildren are living now will not be habitable in their lifetimes: Wilmington, NC; and Key West, FL.
Still Too Many Who Favor Fracking
As we reel from the ravages of two major hurricanes, and anticipate more and worse, there are still those among us who disbelieve the dire warnings of science. Will we learn to “keep it in the ground” soon enough to save our children?
Politics and Fracking
Here’s the CBS News explanation of why the issue is controversial.
https://www.cbsnews.com/video/why-fracking-is-a-major-issue-for-securing-pennsylvania-voters
CBS Discusses Fracking and Politics
Here is CBS News on the pros and cons of fracking and politics. What do you think?
Politics and Fracking
The Energy Industry influence on politics is reminiscent of the tobacco lobby and the gun lobby. Politicians fear opposing them. Voters must discern which candidates are least likely to allow more damage to be done by the “drill baby, drill” crowd.
What You Can Do . . .
Penn Environment is working to stop fracking by opposing legislation that enables it. The energy lobby is relentless and covert. Give this call to action some attention and thought.
Fracking Makes This Worse
Cheaper Oil? –Not!
“It’s clear that turning a blind eye to fracking’s environmental impact in an effort to reduce coal use is like jumping out of the frying pan into the fire.”
This article makes a mistake that is common: It asserts that the cost of oil is reduced from $90 to $30 a barrel. That’s not the whole cost, not by a longshot. Conside this:
- The costs of climate change are “external” to the pricing model.
- The permanent damage to local property values is “external.”
- The Federal and state subsidies are “external.”
- The incalculable damage caused by toxic contamination of air and water is “external.”
- The adverse health effects and their cost is “external.”
These “externalities” aren’t priced in. Consequently, market forces that should make fossil energy more expensive than renewable energy are defeated. The incentives to develop solar, wind, hydro, tidal, geothermal is reduced by the availability of cheap oil.
You must be logged in to post a comment.