A number of our friends and neighbors made the news today (Saturday) by joining Pennsylvania farmers protesting fracking. Here are some links, in case you missed the news:

http://fox43.com/2016/01/09/pennsylvania-farmers-urge-governor-wolf-to-stop-fracking/

http://via.fox43.com/1i42s

http://s.pennlive.com/4sGOP5R

As the year 2015 ends it’s important to know that we are part of a much larger movement that recognizes the dangers of fracking and is working to get America to do the right things.  Here is a report I received from California’s Faith against Fracking organization:

This past year has been one of the most gratifying years in organizing – we accomplished a lot – but it’s also been one of the most challenging funding-wise. And that’s why I’m writing to ask you for your help. While grants partially fund our work, we need to bridge the gap. Can you chip in to help the Rootskeeper team continue our critical organizing work or help fund the Faith Against Fracking campaign? Even a little goes a long way!

Coming off a historic win for a ban on fracking in New York, here’s what we’ve been up to this past year in California:
• Organized the California Crossroads Tour which stopped in 8 cities and held a press conference in Sacramento. After the tour, we produced the California Crossroads Movie where and did house-parties around the state.
• Delivered thousands of petition signatures to Governor Brown calling for a ban on fracking and extreme extraction
• Organized the Clean Not Extreme Day of Action, with 18 distributed actions around the state, calling on Governor Brown to listen to the science laid out in the CCST Report, and to ban fracking.
• Delivered over 150,000 petitions to Governor Brown following Clean Not Extreme at a press conference featuring three state legislators, all of whom called for a ban on fracking in California
• Ramped up momentum on the Faith Against Fracking campaign, producing the short film Faith Against Fracking and holding over 30 screenings around the state
• Delivered the Faith Against Fracking letter to Governor Brown at a multi-faith day of prayer, meditation and inspiration in Sacramento (we hear that faith leaders make Governor Brown nervous).
Through all these actions, we were able to identify and grow a number of strong grassroots leaders who are working with us to strengthen the movement to end fracking and extreme extraction in California.

Next year, we plan on continuing:

• Our work with faith leaders and the Faith Against Fracking Campaign
• Organizing grassroots leaders and holding rallies and press conferences in the state capitol
• Organizing with health professionals, and highlighting health impacts.
• Moving Californians Against Fracking downfield – to win a ban, just like we did in New York!

We’re clearly moving the needle on fracking, but we can’t do it alone. Can you help us continue this important work and make a donation to Rootskeeper, or help us with our Faith Against Fracking campaign?

Thank you for your love and support!
David
David Braun

www.americansagainstfracking.org
www.californiansagainstfracking.org

With domestic needs more than satisfied and prices low the carbon fuel industry is turning to global markets, seemingly heedless of climate change. In a item focusing on the pending end to the embargo on export of US crude oil, The Economist said this:

“OPEC is about to receive a dose of its own medicine. The bold decision, expected by the end of the week, to lift a 40-year-old ban on American oil exports is not just a victory for the principles of free commerce. A dollop of American crude on world markets would put even more pressure on the faltering cartel. In a frenzy of trading in the last few days, expectations of a policy change have virtually wiped out the premium that Brent, the global benchmark, has habitually enjoyed over West Texas Intermediate, its American equivalent. Some of this may be premature. Without a discount to Brent, paying to transport American crude abroad is less attractive. But lifting the ban may also encourage international oil-traders to finance shale production in America in order to secure its easily refined, light, sweet crude. Result: Shale 1, Sheiks 0. Hats off to Congress.”

Market forces and the relentless corporate drive for growth and profit will drive carbon energy companies to find ways to get their product out of the ground and off to market.  Without a balancing force like CCD (Carbon Fee and Dividend) and with our legislators unable or unwilling to take the climate situation seriously, there seems little hope of keeping the carbon in the ground where it must stay for the sake of future generations.

After reading about the proposed Elcon site in Falls Township, a resident asked if there was any actual record of flooding on the 33 acre site. She recalled her experience of nearly buying a Yardley home that, unbeknownst to her, had been gutted and restored after the Delaware flooded a few years ago. She was amazed that Pennsylvania DEP would even consider such a site. What follows is my response.

While one could certainly follow up and get answers to those questions, they would only tell us more about the probability of a flood without assuring us it could not happen.  It’s a matter of risk assessment, not a matter of history.

For the sake of argument let’s assume that the Elcon site has never flooded in recorded history. That does not mean it can’t flood.  Nor does it mean that there is some level of risk that locals should accept.

The risk of flood is different with Elcon than with other businesses.  The other facilities at that location stand to lose their investment in physical assets, as would Elcon. But in the case of Elcon there will be tanks, equipment, containment ponds, and residue storage that would contaminate the river if flooded. Why accept any such risk? What is the upside public benefit? Elcon will do nothing to improve the environment where it is located; there is only downside.

What is the downside risk? Imagine a site handling large volumes of toxic liquids having a mishap: a leak, a spill, a wreck, or whatever. Why should millions of people be at risk of losing their water source for even a day?  With the facility located on a site surrounded  by the river and bodies of water that connect to the river, what possible public good is served by building it there as opposed to a less vulnerable upland location.  Just because Elcon wants it there, and their customers find it convenient doesn’t justify it.

Finally, we know that sea levels are rising and that the river is tidal at the proposed Elcon site.  With extremes of weather more likely in future years, historical risks may be a poor predictor.  Torrential rains can be expected to increase the frequency and severity of river flooding. Polar vortexes may produce unprecedented ice flows and ice dams. Unusually large hurricane surges and the tides they produce may flood low-lying sites that been spared in the past.  Again, why risk it?

The Elcon “thermal oxidizer” vents to the air we breathe. For air quality we rank among the worst in the state.  Should we tolerate more assaults on air quality?

Unfortunately, our permitting system does not consider whether an application is in the public interest or is necessary. It presumes that a property owner should be allowed to do whatever he/she wishes so long as it doesn’t adversely impact the neighbors.