Most of the body of law and regulation that governs fracking (drilling and hydraulic fracturing to extract oil and gas) was established years ago. But the science that accurately assesses health and environmental risks lags behind. A recent survey of scientific publications says:

While research continues to lag behind the rapid scaling of UNGD [unconventional natural gas development], there has been a surge of peer-reviewed scientific papers published in the past several years (Fig 1). By the end of 2015, over 80% of the peer reviewed scientific literature on shale and tight gas development has been published since January 1, 2013 and over 60% since January 1, 2014. This suggests an emerging understanding of the environmental and public health implications of UNGD in the scientific community. Yet, although numerous hazards and risks have been identified in studies to date, many data gaps remain. Notably, while there is now a far more substantive body of science than there was several years ago, there is still only a limited amount of epidemiology that explores associations between risk factors and health outcomes in human populations [1].

“Fools rush in …” as the saying goes.  We know enough from the research and anecdotal reports available now to recognize substantial risks to communities where fracking is done near where people live and work.  Our legislators are being lobbied by energy industry reps who seek to minimize the health risks and focus attention of the prospect of economic benefit.  The effects of fracking are long-term, the economic benefit is relatively brief, and accrues mainly to large corporate interests, not to locals.

Everybody needs to slow down, reconsider the public risk, and assess who benefits.  In my view, nothing justifies more fracking in Pennsylvania. The US doesn’t need it, and the planet is damaged by burning it.

The Standing Rock Sioux are a long way from Bucks County, but the issue is not local to their land.  The State of Pennsylvania embarked on a plan to expedite construction 30,000 miles of pipeline here in Pennsylvania.  Virtually every county in the state would have land seized by eminent domain to facilitate getting shale gas to market. This is not a “NIMBY” not-in-my-back-yard issue. It is madness to rape the land and rush fossil fuels to market with the effects of global warming becoming more evident daily.

Resistance to the energy juggernaut that subverts democracy, ignores stewardship of the planet, and serves only private profit, is a national imperitive.  As I write this on November 15, Marguerite and others are protesting in Doylestown, PA.

Protesters have been marching and doing sit-ins all week. The GOP is calling them “sore losers” and others are saying they are wasting their time. What is remarkable is the peacefulness of these demonstrations. For those who are aware of the science, this is a matter of survival of life as we know it.

“The WMO reported that the past five years were the hottest on record. It reported rising sea levels, soon to increase as a result of the unexpectedly rapid melting of polar ice, most ominously the huge Antarctic glaciers. Already, Arctic sea ice over the past five years is 28 percent below the average of the previous 29 years, not only raising sea levels, but also reducing the cooling effect of polar ice reflection of solar rays, thereby accelerating the grim effects of global warming. The WMO reported further that temperatures are approaching dangerously close to the goal established by COP21, along with other dire reports and forecasts. {Noam Chomsky}”

An American political party committed to lifting the restrictions on fossil fuel extraction, one that denies the urgent warnings of all but a tiny handful of scientists, and ignores the weather events that should serve as warning — this dangerous party now controls all three branches of the US government and is planning to appoint officials who will accelerate fossil fuel extraction and use.

Now, more than ever, it is important that those of us who see the danger do all that we can to build an irresistible grass roots movement to thwart these suicidal political plans. Take a moment to follow the link and see what Chomsky said.

In the campaign President Elect Trump showed no concern about climate change.  Although the article link below refers to coal, we may expect the Trump Presidency to give more license to energy industry interests.  The role of activists will have to focus even more on damage control.

To the extent that Trump offered any major policy positions during the campaign—besides, that is, on building a wall—he made clear what his plans were in the areas of energy and the environment. He called climate change a “hoax”; he said he would “cancel” the international climate treaty negotiated last year, in Paris; and he promised to repeal the regulations that the Obama Administration put in place to reduce carbon emissions from power plants. In September, it was reported that Trump planned to pick Myron Ebell, a well-known climate-change denier and a lobbyist for Koch Companies Public Sector L.L.C., to lead his transition team for the Environmental Protection Agency. The choice made sense, as Trump said repeatedly that he wanted to abolish the E.P.A. — The New Yorker (11-9-16)

Keep watch!