Is anybody else scared about hydrofracking???

Tom_Reingold said:

Good argument. California lives on "borrowed" water already and shouldn't mess around with the water supply. Not that anyone should.

We have a place in the central Hudson Valley. The economy is poor, yet there are no-fracking signs everywhere. The thought of fracking scares the pants off me.

But are the economically down-trodden driving the anti-fracking movement?

tjohn said:

Tom_Reingold said:

Good argument. California lives on "borrowed" water already and shouldn't mess around with the water supply. Not that anyone should.

We have a place in the central Hudson Valley. The economy is poor, yet there are no-fracking signs everywhere. The thought of fracking scares the pants off me.

But are the economically down-trodden driving the anti-fracking movement?

I would say that it isn't black and white with regard to the 'economically downtrodden' and fracking. Most of the upstate economy is dire, with the cities and towns really struggling. NYC area people probably don't realize how bad things are (and have been, for quite some time).

Having said that, it depends on where you are and what the local scene is all about. In upstate counties like Broome, Tioga, Chemung you have a lot of de-industrialized towns and failing dairy farms right across the border from some of the most heavily fracked parts of PA. There are enough Fox news watching, pickup truck driving yahoos sitting on the remnants of the family's dairy farm. I'm sure a slick campaign from Chesapeake Energy is persuasive to these people.

On the other hand, you have places like the Finger Lakes and Cooperstown, where people realize that sustainable businesses like agriculture (vineyards) and tourism, some of the few bright spots in the upstate economy, would be devastated by the fracking industry. For instance, many winery owners and brewers (need pure water) have come out strongly against fracking. Throw in the more educated residents of college towns like Ithaca and Geneva, and you will see lots of anti-fracking posters. I'd say Tom's Hudson valley towns reflect the fact that a lot of urban NYC types have migrated there, and also that there is a strong environmental and counter cultural sentiment around places like the Catskills.

@tjohn: The Economically Down-Trodden are being victimized by the O&G industry and its political hacks in the name of "American Energy Independence"... Their submission to financial luring, while tragic, doesn't guarantee that they even SEE themselves as victims.

The anti-fracking "movement" is driven by concerned citizens with access to clear scientific evidence...

Which side do YOU choose?

-s.

I favor properly regulated fracking.

You wanna define "Properly Regulated"?

-s.

Disclosure of chemicals used, regulation of chemicals used, meaningful penalties for environmental damage for starters.

Good luck with that. O&G will see your Regulation and raise you a Corrupted Congress...

-s.

I favor properly regulated energy extraction, too, and I don't think it exists yet. If it did, it would include paying for all external costs that we would expect to incur in the future. This would include -- among many other things -- the value of the land that is no longer habitable or arable, for all of the years that it is uninhabitable and unarable, paid to all the people who would have lived there or grown food there. Since we know less about the long term costs of fracking, it's too soon to start.

While New York State is pretty poor outside the metro area, not everyone wants it changed. Life is good in many ways. People people you might call po' folks are living a dignified, respectable life. People grow food and barter and work more than one job. I know few people who work only one job.

There are young farmers who are recent college graduates. They rent farms since they can't afford to buy them. The owners are willing the properties to the new farmers. The farmers barely make money, but they believe in what they are doing, and the results are spectacular. Much of the food is organic or close enough. It's good stuff, no matter how it's labeled. Ulster county (where we are) has the potential to be a self-sufficient economy in the case of a disaster. All types of food is grown there except for grain, which could be grown if we wanted it.

So the bank balances are low, but that doesn't mean people live desperate lives. Poor and downtrodden don't necessarily correlate. It is fair to say that poor people (if I may use that word) oppose fracking, and with good reason, even though fracking could provide high-paying jobs. Sometimes, an increase in pay does not amount to an improvement in one's life.

tjohn, if you see Gasland, you will learn that there is no properly regulated fracking. It is all done with wild abandon for the land and outright lies. We know now that it is a disaster everywhere, and yet we probably haven't learned the extent of the effects.

Thank, you, soda, for recommending it to me. I bought the Gasland 2 DVD. I hope to see the original one eventually.

Oh, another thing is that there are bills and laws which guarantee profits to the energy companies. If you refuse to let a company drill, it can sue you for the money it would have made if you had permitted it. It may come to some companies suing the entire New York State for billions over this. This weighs on Cuomo's decision, and he may approve fracking just to avoid this. Is this the way things should be? Does anyone deserve a profit guarantee? Especially when external costs are not paid? This is too bad to be true. And it is true.

I am not under any illusion that fracking is properly regulated. I believe the science and technology exist to do so. That's all.

I hear you, tjohn. But science and technology are having a hard time injecting realism into the political stream. The will to do things right is hard to muster these days. I will never forget how the Challenger exploded unnecessarily. The engineers knew it was too great a risk, but the managers prevailed, because it was politically expedient to continue.

Besides, do we have all the data we need to make rational decisions about fracking if we don't yet know the costs? I think there's evidence that we don't.

FYI: Gasland 1 can be viewed FREE, here: http://vimeo.com/70442569

-s.

FREE GASLAND 2 SCREENINGS!
ORGANIZED BY: FLEMINGTON DIY (http://www.flemingtondiy.org/)

• JUL 9TH @ 7:30 PM
• 90 Main St Flemington, NJ 08822

• JUL 16TH @ 7:30 PM
• (90 Main St Flemington, NJ 08822)
•
• Wanna Host a Screening? Download the home screening guide:

http://www.gaslandthemovie.com/pdf/GaslandScreeningGuide.pdf

-s.

BTW: Here's the trailer:

Thank you, soda.

Meanwhile,

Where's the western/NJ end of that pipeline. Tom?

-s.

soda said:

Where's the western/NJ end of that pipeline. Tom?

-s.

I don't know. The scary thing is that I believe the eastern end is at Montauk point. We're going to be exporting gas to other countries.

Here's some good news...

http://billmoyers.com/content/photo-essay-dryden-the-town-that-changed-the-fracking-game/

-s.

Thanks, soda - forwarding this to my activist-daughter (but she probably already knows about this!).

Follow-up... Why am I not surprised?

http://www.texassharon.com/2014/07/13/caught-on-video-petition-circulators-deceive-denton-residents/

-s.

Makes me ill.

People...natural gas is booming because it is one of few viable alternatives to coal, oil and nuclear energy.

Except for the pockets of Appalachia which still depend on a coal economy, no one wants to continue our dependence on dirty coal energy which destroy our forests, pollute the air and endanger coal workers.

Our dependency on foreign oil has political costs we are no longer willing to bear. And, our domestic oil reserves are depleting and off-shore/unconventional oil drilling bring its own environmental costs - see Deepwater Horizon.

Would you all prefer we invest in nuclear energy? There hasn't been a new plant constructed since 1974. It's cleaner and more reliable. But the environmental risk in the event of an accident can be catastrophic.

What are the alternatives? Solar. Wind. Water. Fuel cells. All great options. But combined, they account for a small fraction of our current energy supply. So why not direct some of the energy against natural gas to federal investment in clear, renewable alternatives?

Hahaha said:

People...natural gas is booming because it is one of few viable alternatives to coal, oil and nuclear energy.

Except for the pockets of Appalachia which still depend on a coal economy, no one wants to continue our dependence on dirty coal energy which destroy our forests, pollute the air and endanger coal workers.

Our dependency on foreign oil has political costs we are no longer willing to bear. And, our domestic oil reserves are depleting and off-shore/unconventional oil drilling bring its own environmental costs - see Deepwater Horizon.

Would you all prefer we invest in nuclear energy? There hasn't been a new plant constructed since 1974. It's cleaner and more reliable. But the environmental risk in the event of an accident can be catastrophic.

What are the alternatives? Solar. Wind. Water. Fuel cells. All great options. But combined, they account for a small fraction of our current energy supply. So why not direct some of the energy against natural gas to federal investment in clear, renewable alternatives?

This all makes a lot of sense. However, we're using new technologies to extract gas without bothering to first study the safety or environmental impact. There are real concerns, I think, and wanting these addressed doesn't have to mean killing off all attempts to extract natural gas.

mjh said:

Hahaha said:

People...natural gas is booming because it is one of few viable alternatives to coal, oil and nuclear energy.

Except for the pockets of Appalachia which still depend on a coal economy, no one wants to continue our dependence on dirty coal energy which destroy our forests, pollute the air and endanger coal workers.

Our dependency on foreign oil has political costs we are no longer willing to bear. And, our domestic oil reserves are depleting and off-shore/unconventional oil drilling bring its own environmental costs - see Deepwater Horizon.

Would you all prefer we invest in nuclear energy? There hasn't been a new plant constructed since 1974. It's cleaner and more reliable. But the environmental risk in the event of an accident can be catastrophic.

What are the alternatives? Solar. Wind. Water. Fuel cells. All great options. But combined, they account for a small fraction of our current energy supply. So why not direct some of the energy against natural gas to federal investment in clear, renewable alternatives?

This all makes a lot of sense. However, we're using new technologies to extract gas without bothering to first study the safety or environmental impact. There are real concerns, I think, and wanting these addressed doesn't have to mean killing off all attempts to extract natural gas.

True. But the pressure to lower residential energy costs and reduce our dependency on foreign oil has pushed the natural gas agenda forward - ahead of the necessary health and safety studies (which would take years). In the meantime, you also have property owners who are cashing-in while simultaneously railing about the damage their wells are doing to their land and water. You can't have it both ways.

Hahaha said:

mjh said:

Hahaha said:

People...natural gas is booming because it is one of few viable alternatives to coal, oil and nuclear energy.

Except for the pockets of Appalachia which still depend on a coal economy, no one wants to continue our dependence on dirty coal energy which destroy our forests, pollute the air and endanger coal workers.

Our dependency on foreign oil has political costs we are no longer willing to bear. And, our domestic oil reserves are depleting and off-shore/unconventional oil drilling bring its own environmental costs - see Deepwater Horizon.

Would you all prefer we invest in nuclear energy? There hasn't been a new plant constructed since 1974. It's cleaner and more reliable. But the environmental risk in the event of an accident can be catastrophic.

What are the alternatives? Solar. Wind. Water. Fuel cells. All great options. But combined, they account for a small fraction of our current energy supply. So why not direct some of the energy against natural gas to federal investment in clear, renewable alternatives?

This all makes a lot of sense. However, we're using new technologies to extract gas without bothering to first study the safety or environmental impact. There are real concerns, I think, and wanting these addressed doesn't have to mean killing off all attempts to extract natural gas.

True. But the pressure to lower residential energy costs and reduce our dependency on foreign oil has pushed the natural gas agenda forward - ahead of the necessary health and safety studies (which would take years). In the meantime, you also have property owners who are cashing-in while simultaneously railing about the damage their wells are doing to their land and water. You can't have it both ways.

Yes, this is why we need the government to play a critical role. And I don't think this can happen at the local level, as there is far too much pressure to cash in.

I don't understand why we are still relying on oil and gas when the solar and wind power is clean and safe. Well I DO understand I guess... not much money in things that are essentially free.

Hahaha said:

People...natural gas is booming because it is one of few viable alternatives to coal, oil and nuclear energy.

Except for the pockets of Appalachia which still depend on a coal economy, no one wants to continue our dependence on dirty coal energy which destroy our forests, pollute the air and endanger coal workers.

Our dependency on foreign oil has political costs we are no longer willing to bear. And, our domestic oil reserves are depleting and off-shore/unconventional oil drilling bring its own environmental costs - see Deepwater Horizon.

Would you all prefer we invest in nuclear energy? There hasn't been a new plant constructed since 1974. It's cleaner and more reliable. But the environmental risk in the event of an accident can be catastrophic.

What are the alternatives? Solar. Wind. Water. Fuel cells. All great options. But combined, they account for a small fraction of our current energy supply. So why not direct some of the energy against natural gas to federal investment in clear, renewable alternatives?

Uh, you are forgetting conservation and efficiency - mankind is going to need get serious about this, and sooner would be preferable to later. Natural gas isn't that clean, at least in the sense of contributing CO2 to the atmosphere. And its extraction can be dirty business too.

Of course, we have to pursue any and all conservation efforts available - including building more efficient buildings, retro-fitting existing buildings and using more efficient appliances.

And now some visual aids...

-s.

http://www.upworthy.com/a-few-postcards-that-give-us-6-reasons-why-we-should-put-a-stop-to-a-terrible-practice?c=ufb1

Have they found any new ways to make it safer?

@Hahaha, pay attention to the damage that fracking has done. It has poisoned the land and water and ruined homes and communities. I don't think we should tolerate this in the name of cheap energy. I can't call it clean, either. It's cleaner at the burning site, but not cleaner overall.