Yes, That’s Me — In a Panda Suit
Cherie Messore
Director of Public Affairs — IOGA-NY
I offered this post back in January, before we heard about the recent plans for multiple protests in Watkins Glen. The hypocrisy and shallowness of the folks planning this stuff cries out for a repeat, so here we go:
Perhaps some of you saw this week the curious notice posted online of a “civil disobedience” camp being organized next weekend on “an off-grid farm” near Keuka Lake by those who want to prevent clean-burning natural gas from being produced in, for and by New York State. Of course, the two-day activist training sessions may be off the electrical grid, but according to the sign-up sheet online, “we ESPECIALLY need people who are driving to sign up.” Presumably they mean driving “cars,” and presumably those cars are powered by “fossil fuels” — or the things they’re there to protest. Too bad irony is such a dead scene.
Think about it: Instead of swimming and macramé, anti-energy activists will learn how to “go limp” when being put under arrest and make a (happily) sedate group of 5 people look like an unruly mob of 50 for the newspapers. Campfire treats will be s’mores made with organic graham crackers, single-origin bean 70% dark chocolate and free-range marshmallows. In other words, pretty silly. (Except the s’mores bit, which actually sound pretty good.)
Me, circa 1986, in a "fund the arts" rally in Buffalo, NY. No, I didn't get to keep the suit. And yes, I smelled like bamboo for two months after
Civil Disobedience, rooted in Thoreau’s 1849 essay (required reading in high school if you’re of “a certain age”) which later inspired Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., Susan B. Anthony and others, is part of a strong American tradition intended to show displeasure with government. It’s a clarion call against human suffering, to advocate for human rights, stop the war and ban the bomb. It’s also a good way to support the arts, as I learned in the mid-1980s while wearing this panda outfit to the right.
But none of those things will be on the table at Keuka Lake next week. No, these anti-HF folks are heading up to camp to learn how to prevent the generation of jobs, revenue and cost-savings for consumers on energy that responsible Marcellus development has made possible for other states, and can make possible for New York as well.
The good news is that the worm has turned on this issue just a bit over the past couple weeks — and while we still have plenty to do before permits are issued for genuine Marcellus activity in New York, at least now, for the first time in a long time, flickers of light can be seen at the end of the tunnel. In today’s New York Post, a spokesman for Gov. Cuomo is quoted as saying that “assuming [Marcellus development] can be done safely and is properly regulated, the economic reports from Pennsylvania show the potential financial and economic rewards from developing this industry.” Indeed they do. And it’s about time we put those rewards to work for New Yorkers.
Comments are closed.
I think it’s important to note that individuals seeking a movement in sustainable energy do not, for the most part, feel that technology is such a horrible thing! These are NOT people that vow to give up cars, light bulbs, or the internet. We as movement value these things, but are working to create more sustainable sources so that our technological feats are not powered by energies that harm each other, and in the long run prevent future generation from enjoying their use.
You call natural-gas “clean burning.” I say we should be calling it “natural” gas. I can move quotation marks around too if I want to prove a point.
You ask us to practice what we preach by not driving, and you wonder why we aren’t instead enjoying “swimming and macramé.” I’ll make a deal with you! Join our camp, panda suit and all, and I’ll bring the macramé. (Please, however, use the rideshare page to find a carpool so that we can burn less fossil fuels)
The point is that “off the grid” doesn’t mean fossil fuel free. Even the computer you typed your message from includes fossil fuel products. Also, “sustainable” is one of those meaningless terms that adapts to whatever point the author desires to make. From my perspective, it means being able to make a decent living as well as maintain a clean environment. Natural gas offers tremendous benefits to both.
Again, the point I’m trying to make is that asking us as a movement to not partake in technologies that run on fossil fuels is absurd. What we can and will continue to do is demand that these things (internet companies, transportation energies, etc.) start running on renewable resources. If you want me to be clearer in my definition of sustainability, I’ll go with the literal definition. The capacity to endure. Using forms of energy like methane (or “natural gas”) are not sustainable in that they diminish the ability of our ecology to remain diverse and productive over time.
Presumably, the “capacity to endure” means making a decent living. As for your “demands,” I merely point out there are plenty of us who strongly disgagree with your views and we have a right to resist your demands to a degree at least equal to your right to make them.
Indeed, everyone’s entitled to their views. But it is interesting to think about why anti-drillers have the views they have and why pro-drillers have the views they have. It really doesn’t matter in the end, but it’s interesting to think about. In what ways do anti-drillers benefit from having that view and in what ways do pro-drillers benefit from having that view?
First look up petroleum products everything your touch even your hemp sandals come in contact with Hydrocarbons (the evil Fossil fuel)!
We have two distinct groups here:
One side artist, poets,War chest babies with guilt, professors, non-for profits, creative sensitive people.
Most common threads they are employed by a form of government sheltered from the real world. Many of them working with non-adults.
But yet protest the hand that feeds the paycheck. Grants from government, private business hard working private sector business that pay the tuition..
People that think subsidies are the answer to future power. But lack a total understanding of real solid economics. …..a tax base… that needs to survive.
The other side:
Engineers, scientist, technicians farmers, factory workers ,hands on privately funded corporate folks, Unsubsidized non grant Businesses. The TRUE TAX PAYER.
Folks that work12 months out of the year 50 hour weeks no summers off.
.
Weekend warriors spending the money that fuels the rest of reality.
People that carry their own weight, would be the first to defend their country
Under any circumstances. Those who contribute MONEY to social programs (Arts, United Way ,SPCA, ect…. to help all.
But I could be wrong……
One thing is for sure this brother fighting brother crap needs to stop.
Your sustainable might work someday but You need real powerful energy NOW!
Wow, I am always very surprised when people try and inhibit the progress the youth is trying so hard to make. The fact is, they are students. They are intelligent and are extremely concerned about the well-being of the people that have been affected by the natural gas drillng. The training will be bringing them together to talk about the issue of energy and how to revolutionize our country. Who in the right mind thinks that a fossil fuel economy is the way to go? People like you and me need these students out there tryng to make a better future for us all. Also, i think you have a misconception about our current energy model and our economy. Creating a Clean Energy Economy is actually going to boost our economy to create MANY jobs. Way more than natural gas or another coal plant can create. I am very dissapointed with what this article is trying to get at. Coal and natural gas is a FINITE resource. You need to grasp the meaning of FINITE. But I bet you dont care. Why should you? You won’t be here in the next 50 years to see what the earth and civilazation will be going through if we continue on with fossil fuels.
You can rail against fossil fuels all you want but there is no way to simply drop them. None of the alternatives are economical alternatives as yet and won’t be for some time. Natural gas allows for a responsible transition over the decades that will be required. Natural gas is the mechanism for advancing beyond fossil fuels.
Why don’t corporations like Chesapeake, Talisman, Shell, Halliburton and Chautauqua invest a heck of a lot more into alternative/cleaner energy? Surely they’ve got the cash and the resources for some large-scale R&D.
Suggest you read this and this.
Thanks for the links Tom, but there seems to have been a misunderstanding…the links mention investments made into products that still use natural gas extensively (i.e., not “clean”). What I meant was why aren’t these corporations investing primarily in solar, wind, geothermal and tidal energy? Surely they’ve got the money and resources to do it.
And you can name a company “Clean Energy”, but that doesn’t mean it is in fact a company that invests primarily in solar, wind, geothermal and tidal energy. They’re not fooling anyone except those that “judge a book by its cover”.
Suggest you visit this site but the larger point is that it is not up to anyone but a company’s management and stockholders ton decide where to invest its capital.
Fossil fuels are only economical due to the Government intervention–in the form of subsidies and tax breaks. If renewable resources received the same consideration; they could be nearly as inexpensive. In 2007, Oil and Gas received between $49 and $100 Billion dollars in subsidies and tax breaks. There is $41 Billion dollars in subsidies alone this year for Oil and Gas; compared with $6 Billion for Renewable Energy. This seems a bit out of sync, don’t you think? (info is here
Hey Dwayne…..outta synch huh….????? You may want to remove your rose colored glasses and post your sophistry elsewhere. I want some bang for my tax buck…I DO NOT want my money squandered on a “pie in the sky”scheme funneling tax revenue to an industry which cannot survive on its own merit in the market place, particularly GE, which pays no taxes on billions of profit, and its Obama lackey, CEO Jeffrey Immelt. Apparently you’re unaware wind and solar receive federal subsidies (these data DO NOT INCLUDE depreciation or ANY state subsidies) at a rate 97 to 98 times (9800%) more than natural gas and liquid petroleum, 54 times (5400%) more than coal, 36 times (3600%) more than hydro-electric and 15 times (1500%) more than nuclear. How about relying on the non-partisan US Energy Information Administration on subsidies and capital costs…….from the Institute for Energy Research compilation of EIA data….QUOTE
What are the Costs of Competing Technologies?
Construction Costs
The EIA provides the construction costs for a slate of generating technologies and their expected annual generating costs for 2016, the first year that they can be compared owing to the different construction times for each plant type. The construction costs, without finance charges,[vi] are depicted in the following graph. The capital costs (in 2008 dollars) range from $648 per kilowatt for a gas-fired turbine to $6,171 per kilowatt for a photovoltaic solar plant, the highest cost of all of the future generating technologies that EIA considers in its forecasts. Coal and gas-fired plants generally dominate a forecast where current laws and regulations are assumed to continue in the future. A conventional coal plant with equipment for removing sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions runs $2,223 per kilowatt and a coal-fired integrated gasification combined cycle plant runs $2,569 per kilowatt. Gas-fired combined cycle plants are of even lower cost at $968 per kilowatt. These technologies can be used as base-load plants that operate at high capacity factors when electricity demand is at its highest.
You can access a graph detailing Capital Costs of Generating Technologies at this link:
http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2010/03/09/expensive-solar-power-continues-to-be-built-in-the-u-s-why/
Annualized Generating Costs of New Plants
Many advocates of renewable technologies indicate that while the capital cost of so called “green technologies” may be higher than conventional fossil-fueled technologies, the benefit is zero fuel cost for their preferred technologies–solar and wind. While that is true, wind and solar technologies cannot provide base-load power because the sun is not always visible and the wind does not always blow, meaning the electricity may not be available when you need it. Taking into account these factors as well as operation and maintenance costs and fuel costs, EIA puts their slate of future generating technologies on a comparable basis by calculating levelized cost, that is, the annual cost of generating power including capital, fuel, operation and maintenance, and finance charges.[vii] And, in the case of coal, they include the equivalent of a $15 per ton carbon dioxide emission fee to represent the current financial and regulatory environment for coal-fired plants. Many coal-fired plants are finding difficulty in getting financing and/or are facing regulatory or legal delays in obtaining permits.
The levelized costs among the various technologies (expressed in 2008 dollars) range from $79.3 per megawatt-hour for a gas-fired combined cycle plant to $396.1 per megawatt-hour for a photovoltaic solar plant. Coal plants run from $100.4 to $110.5 per megawatt-hour for conventional coal and integrated combined cycle, respectively. Although wind has a lower cost than solar, it is still higher on an annualized basis than gas and coal-fired plants because of its lower capacity factor. Wind turbines built on-shore are estimated to cost $149.3 per megawatt-hour, and wind built off-shore has estimated annual costs of $191.1 per megawatt-hour. Again, the costs are for a plant beginning operation in 2016, the first year that can be compared for a new plant because of the difference in construction times among the various technologies.
Using the above link, you’ll find the projected costs of technologies in 2016.
Why Are Electric Utilities Building Wind and Solar Plants?
Subsidies and Mandates for Renewable Technologies
Electric utilities are building wind and solar plants because of incentives offered and mandates laid down by state and federal officials. These include subsidies in the form of investment tax credits, production tax credits, accelerated depreciation of the asset for tax purposes, and Renewable Electricity Standards (RES), which require electric utilities either to build a required amount of renewable power or to purchase credits from other electric utilities who more than meet the targeted requirements. Currently, twenty-eight states and the District of Columbia have renewable electricity standards.[viii] The RES specifications differ by state. North Carolina is the only state in the southeast with an RES. Many southern states are against a federal RES because they will have to purchase renewable credits from other areas of the country since they have very little “green” resources. Purchasing electricity credits will increase their electricity rates, possibly driving out industry from their states. While more than half the states have an RES, many are not monitoring its compliance, and, with the exception of Texas, are not meeting their renewable targets.[ix]
Solar power has had a 10-percent investment tax credit since 1978, which was made permanent by the Energy Policy Act of 1992. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 established a 30-percent personal tax credit, not to exceed $2,000, for the purchase of solar electric and solar water heating property. The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 extended the 30-percent tax credit to 2016 and lifted the cap. It also allowed electric utilities to qualify, paving the way for electric utilities to begin constructing solar thermal and solar photovoltaic facilities.
Wind received a federal production tax credit (PTC) as part of the Energy Policy Act of 1992, defined as a 1.5-cents-per-kilowatt-hour payment (adjusted annually for inflation), available for 10 years to investors for facilities placed in service between 1994 and June 30, 1999. The PTC for wind has expired and been reinstated several times since its origination. The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 extended the PTC to 2.1-cents-per-kilowatt-hour through 2012. The $787 billion economic stimulus that President Obama signed into law in February 2009 makes a 30 percent investment tax credit available in lieu of the production credit.
Federal Subsidies for Renewable Power Compared to Other Generating Technologies
While these are some of the more direct subsidies that wind and solar receive, there are many others at both the federal and state level, such as the accelerated depreciation mentioned above. The EIA did a study comparing the federal subsidies received for electric generation by fuel type for fiscal year 2007.[x] They found that wind and solar received almost 100 times more in subsidies than oil and natural gas plants on an electricity production basis. Total federal subsidies for electric production from wind power were $23.37 per megawatt hour (in 2007 dollars) and for solar power were $24.34 per megawatt hour, compared to 44 cents for traditional coal, 25 cents for natural gas and petroleum liquids, 67 cents for hydroelectric power, and $1.59 for nuclear. These subsidies include the federal production and investment tax credits, but do not include accelerated depreciation (a five-year tax write-off) and state subsidies. Energy subsidies are paid for by consumers and tax payers; they are not free.
Despite more than 30 years of subsidies, set asides, and favorable treatment, for the first eleven months of 2009, solar power produced only 0.02 percent of our electricity and wind power produced only 1.7 percent of our electricity.
Conclusion
Government is intended to work for the people. However, governments have expanded their influence to many areas of our lives where the rationale for action is suspect, even nonexistent. Arguments such as “energy independence from OPEC oil” make no sense when evaluating options for the electricity sector because this fuel generates only 1 percent of U.S. electricity, and this small quantity could be easily replaced if it were economical to do so.
Wind and solar are supposedly the answer for reducing carbon dioxide emissions from electrical generation. But as Texas has found,[xii] wind and solar tend to reduce natural gas-fired generation (the least carbon-intensive fossil fuel) rather than coal-fired generation (the most carbon-intensive fossil fuel), because existing coal-fired generation is less expensive than gas-fired generation. Finding the correct policy to meet one’s goals tends to be difficult in such a complex economic environment. A bad policy can be more damaging than no policy, because it costs the American public money either through taxes or through higher rates for products.
Some people believe that “green energy” will create jobs that will stimulate the economy. But case studies from Spain,[xiii] Germany,[xiv] and Denmark[xv] have shown just the opposite. Early on, Spain embarked on a program of “20-percent renewable by 2010,” to set an example for other countries. However, a Spanish study has found that for every green job the Spanish government created, 2.2 jobs were destroyed elsewhere in the economy, and 9 out of 10 government-created green jobs were temporary. The phrase “20 percent by 2010” turned out to be a close approximation of Spain’s unemployment rate.[xvi]
A German study found that green jobs created by government actions disappear as soon as government support is terminated. A Danish study found that the government’s wind experiment was an expensive way to create jobs or to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
So why are our politicians continuing to subsidize and mandate inefficient and expensive sources of energy? Doing so only increases taxes (to pay for the subsidies) and increases the price of energy. It’s a lose-lose proposition.
Amanda…….you’re a disciple of Peak Oil and the Hubbert Curve. Please document the veracity of both as true, tried, irrefutable science. Then explain to me how “dry” oil & gas wells mysteriously refill, worldwide.
http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com/2009/10/what-if-oil-is-life-form-oil-wells-that.html
Tell me how “fossil fuels” were created under your Peak Oil theory. Let’s talk Saudi oil. Did millions upon millions of dinosaurs, sensing imminent coronaries, plod their way to Mecca only to go “belly-up” en masse…?? Did a prehistoric branch of Al Qaeda send in a Brontosaurus suicide bomber and dispatch all those critters to meet hot, little dinosaur virgins..??? Or did a Bedouin towing outfit hook up their camels and tow all those deceased dinosaurs to a mass grave where eons morphed them into 10W-30 PennZoil..?? How about coal…why is that found in concentrations rather than ubiquitously..?? What say you.
Suggest you delve into Thomas Gold and especially his book “Deep, Hot Biosphere.” Then ask yourself the obvious really difficult questions which will confront you.
Give me scientific journals proving that it’s “safe”. Otherwise, blasting dangerous and cancerous VOCs below aquifers, which once contaminated cannot be “fixed”, should be analyzed by the precautionary principle. Deep-water drilling is perhaps even more “safe”. But one mistake and you can have catastrophic consequences.
Furthermore, this article is uncomfortably biased (not to mention that you work for a petroleum organization, thanks for screwing the USA’s long term energy security by the way). Could you please explain to me why the footage and arguments made in Gas Land will not happen here? Could you give me a list of all the chemicals that these companies use, or is that “protected”? Could you tell me what are the long term effects of drilling–are they akin to short run boom cycles, then once the gas has been depleted, the companies run and crash communities akin to WV’s Coal mining? More importantly, what’s the opportunity cost of hydrofracking–why not install wind turbines or solar, or even nuclear?
For a pompous article such as this one, I’d think that you’d know all of these things. I’m eager to hear a response. Sorry, the “job-killing energy saving” sentence won’t cut it.
We have, several times, published the links to the list of chemicals. You can read them here.
Thank-you for the link Tom. Now citizens can know what and how many toxic chemicals are being pumped into the ground.
Now, why was hydrofracking exempt from the Safe Drinking Water Act and other such safety regulations in the Halliburton Loophole? http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/opinion/03tue3.html
There is no Halliburton loophole – even Tony Ingraffea admits that much.
Surely you can’t be suggesting the Energy Policy Act of 2005 never existed.
Not at all – it passed with 85 votes in the Senate with bi-partisan support, and Dick Cheney’s vice-presidential tie-breaking vote wasn’t even close to being needed.
Great points, Cherie! You captured the essence of what’s wrong with this training – it’s targeted at the welfare of ordinary people who need the ability to make a decent living and the one’s doing the protesting are those who don’t have to worry about such mundane matters so they have time to play games and can’t understand why everyone else doesn’t share their views. Therefore, they intend to just insist on it.
Hello there Cherie Messore!
I was running around the internet seeing the latest news on the fracking front and I bumped into this blog here. I read your post and it inspired me to make a reply!
Quite frankly, the idea that anti-gas drilling activists are driving gas driven vehicles to learn about preventing gas drilling seems silly. It tickled my tummy to think about it. But, the more I thought, the more I wondered if it was actually foolish.
While the Green Umbrella team is rallying now under the banner of “anti-frack”. The message they are teaching is not one bounded by an “anti-frack” parameter. I don’t think peaceful civil disobedience can be restricted to one subject. In the same respect, I don’t believe the information will be restricted to each individual. Companies often send their workers to workshops to learn more. Likewise, environmental groups will send representatives to this workshop. What follows is a diffusion of knowledge. One activist will teach several others. I don’t really think this is silly.
Also, I am interested in the jobs that are proposed. I live in Oneonta New York. Several towns that surround mine are in great need of financial income. However, I am not so sure where these will come from. I mean, workers are expensive things to train. Knowledge comes at a price. You visited this above in the gas needed to drive the activists. Well, where are the hypothetical drillers coming from? I read reports that these are migrant workers of sorts. They head out to where the fuel is. Do you think we can expect to get trained as drillers? Or, will most of the jobs come from service industries?
Right, I know this reply is getting very lengthy and I have just one more thing I want to ask. Maybe discuss is a better word. I am curious to hear what you mean by “cost-savings for consumers on energy”. Does anyone have figures for this? I ask because there are reports of drillers hitting deep saline sections where they are drilling. When they pump the water down and it comes back up, it is salty (like brine!). Desalinization is a very expensive process. While the companies themselves may not be constrained under the Clean Water Act (CWA), they will pass this water through treatment centers who are under the CWA. This will raise the operating cost of these plants. Who will foot the bill for this?
Natural gas while burning may be relatively cleaner than coal. The extraction process is something that troubles me. I am not sure where the jobs will come from.
After reading my post through I realize I sound incredibly biased. Honest to goodness, I just want to know what the heck is going on here.
Thank you Cherie,
-Alex
Wow that’s a lot of assumptions you’re making there Ms. Messore. If I were like you I’d assume that you’re making quite a bit of cash or receiving some other nice benefits for your contributions to IOGA-NY, but I’m not like you so it’d be unfair for me to make those assumptions.
Will drilling bring jobs to NY? Yes. Will alternative energy bring jobs to NY? Yes. So which should society pick? There’s nothing clean about natural gas when it comes to extraction, treatment, utilization and disposal. Methane (a greenhouse gas) emissions from flow-back fluids and from drill out of wells give it a high greenhouse gas footprint. Not to mention the water contamination and water usage needed for HF. That’s not a big deal, correct? Climate change is not a big deal, correct? As long as people’s wallets are nice and fat, correct?
You mention “responsible Marcellus development…” in paragraph 4, I believe the use of the word “responsible” was in error.
You’ll have to better than this. Methane doesn’t come from flow-back fluids. Moreover, natural gas is a solution no matter how much you try to deny it and other countries recognize this.
Interesting link, but I’m interested to hear my points be addressed.
Cherie, no one is protesting the use of fossil fuels. What they’re protesting is the over-consumption of fossil fuels, to the extent that drillers have to take great risks (at the expense of public health, subsidies, and environmental damage) to get at it.
Unsubstantiated assertions do not win an argument. You cite all kinds of things without evidence. Indeed, the evidence all runs the other way. Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale Advosory Commission just today said there is no evidence of water supply pollution from gas (page 74):
“Despite significant public and media attention concerning the potential for the process of hydraulic fracturing to contaminate fresh water sources, DEP’s experience to date indicates no instances where the process itself has negatively impacted a water supply. More than 15 additional large natural gas producing states, including New York State, have made similar certifications to
the U.S. Ground Water Protection Council.”
So the numerous reports of groundwater contamination in PA after gas wells were placed nearby are just people that are bored and have nothing better to do?
About the Marcellus Shale Advisory Commission, can one reasonably say that it is unbiased when it holds 13 industry representatives (including Chesapeake, Chevron, Exxon) and 4 environmentalists (maybe a slight miscount, so + /- one) while everyone else is government along with 1 geologist. Where are the biologists, ecologists and climatologists?
And I’m curious about the amount of campaign contributions that the industries 13 of the members represent made to Governor Corbett. I’d be interested to see figures.
DEP–can you trust an agency under the purview of a Governor who was elected with nearly $1 million in campaign contributions from the Gas industry? Furthermore; do you really want to believe a commission that was top heavy with industry insiders; and had only ONE representative from an environmental group that is outside of government or industry influence (Chesapeake Bay Foundation)? Or that had no representation from Public Health?
Look here if you want to find out about Campaign Contributions from the Natural Gas Industry to Governor Corbett. There are further links to sites like Common Cause and Follow the Money.
Penn Environment also has details on the contributions.
“Presumably they mean driving ‘cars,’ and presumably those cars are powered by ‘fossil fuels’”
What a silly, fallacious comparison. A few people driving vs. a massive energy infrastructure stuck in the 20th Century, fueled by climate-altering fossil fuels. That’s like comparing Walmart with a cornerstore.
We’re seeing the symptoms of rising average global surface temperature, and pretending that fracking for natural gas is any sort of solution is absolute crap. While the gas industry pushes the “cleaner than dirty coal” talking point, they fail to mention the massive methane releases involved in fracking–methane that is far more potent a greenhouse gas than CO2.
Frackers repeatedly deny (despite documented government and industry evidence) the severe pollution issues that state regulators cannot seem to control, that wastewater treatment is unable to address, that consumers are unaware of because of multimillion dollar PR campaigns falsely touting “natural” fracked gas as a solution to energy independence, climate change, the economy, and even your dog’s bad breath.
Dishonesty is a persistent symptom of bureaucratic profit-chasing, and the oil and gas industry is a prime case study.
But since you can’t factually disprove my comments (again, with facts), go ahead and make fun of the hippies. Shift the focus, belittle the opposition. How honorable of you.
Not much here other than a lot of name-calling, so we’ll let this one stand on its merits.
Indeed, a little bit of name calling (not something I condone), wouldn’t say there’s “not much here OTHER than a lot of name-calling”, to each their own I suppose. Nevertheless, I am interested to hear your factual/scientific reply to the points mentioned in the 3rd paragraph.
I don’t think my comments include any personal attack–fracking is a “crap” solution, the comparison is “fallacious,” and “frackers” is simply shorthand for fracking companies, not intended to be a self-amusing pseudo-curseword jab at industry apologists.
I’d say Tom isn’t responding because there isn’t a good response, not because I think he’s evil or unintelligent. I thank him for letting my arguments stand on their merits. If you want examples for my claims of dishonesty across industry PR fronts (and Energy In Depth is a fantastic example), for the implications of fracking on the global climate or waterways, I’d be happy to post more.
Ironic that Tom wasn’t bothered by all of the disrespectful comments that led me to use the word “hippies,” as that clearly was the allusion of the “free range marshmallows” and other inflammatory comments.
Here’s a fact for you. Or you may want to check this post (including the links). That being said, it seems your mind is made up and will disregard any facts put forward.
@John:
I’m not at all surprised that Lisa Jackson won’t talk about cases of contamination. The EPA has done a great job not talking about their own internal reviews, to the eternal frustration of people like myself who would actually like to see the government do their job.
As for Energy In Depth, I think this memo tells a lot:
http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/HFUnderFire.pdf
“The “Energy In Depth” project would not be possible without the early financial commitments of: El Paso Corporation, XTO Energy, Occidental Petroleum, BP, Anadarko, Marathon, EnCana, Chevron, Talisman, Shell, API, IPAA, Halliburton, Schlumberger and the Ohio Oil and Gas Association.”
Not exactly impartial, so I’m not really surprised to hear EID hasn’t noticed cases where contamination exists. That’s what it was created to do.
Wouldn’t expect attention to detail here. Our funders are no secret we plaster that information everywhere. Had you taken the time to actually read the post you would have found information from organizations outside EID. That however would require you to read attentively.
In respectful disagreement, I think there was a lot more to this post then name-calling (where is there even name-calling, by the way?) Frackattack! makes a great point about the difference between a few people driving vs. an entire energy infastructure. Completely incomparable.
Wow! You hit a nerve when you exposed the civil disobedience bible!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_sitting
Hello Alex Soroka – Using the state of Pennsylvania as a guide, 71-percent of the permanent positions are held by state of PA residents. That will be a fantastic spike for the state of NY. Several of the state’s colleges and universities offer undergraduate and graduate level degrees in geology, engineering and other pure sciences. I’ve also heard that some two-year colleges are also launching degrees in relevant fields. More good news. This could help keep NYers in NY and not looking elsewhere to earn their livings, raise their families, buy their homes and invest in community.
Cherie
That is correct ,Wave upon wave of graduates many with dept exceeding $200.000 working at fast food joins and living at home.
And in Pa. a 2 year program has 100% placement!
I showed the article below to 7 students home for the summer and their answer
WoW!
What can your side toss up that can compare.
http://eidmarcellus.org/2011/07/14/tioga-county-a-great-place-to-learn-about-opportunities-provided-by-natural-gas/
Speaking as a young person just starting college, I do find the idea that I could go through a 2 year program, graduate and definitely get a job VERY appealing. However, given the fact that gas wells don’t last for very long and may not even be profitable in many cases (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/26/us/26gas.html?_r=1), I don’t think that fracking stands up on economic benefits.
In other words, a few years of a boom economy with 100% job placement, and then when the gas companies move on to a new location, a “bust” and 100% joblessness among the industry’s former employees is not a good thing. I would rather have to deal with a rocky start to my career than a few years of work, followed by a ruined economy, landscape and environment in my town.
And, just where do you get this idea it will only be for a few years? I suggest you read the Penn State study here.
Here you go NY……..hope the economical benefits outweigh being able to light the water that comes out of your faucet on fire.
http://www.time.com/time/video/player/0,32068,876880045001_2062814,00.html
As you well know, lighting faucets on fire is very old and preceded gas well drilling by decades. We have posted numerous times on this. Take a gander at these posts, for instance:
http://eidmarcellus.org/2011/07/12/2281/- Water Recycling in PA.
http://eidmarcellus.org/2011/07/11/the-mighty-marcellus-saves-a-local-trout-hatchery/
http://eidmarcellus.org/2011/07/11/straying-from-history-and-the-facts/
http://eidmarcellus.org/2011/07/08/a-crystal-clear-moment-in-bradford-co-thanks-to-dep/
http://eidmarcellus.org/2011/07/08/new-york-confirms-safety-and-economic-benefits-of-hydraulic-fracturing/
http://eidmarcellus.org/2011/07/05/sgeis-methane/
http://eidmarcellus.org/2011/07/01/water-water-everywhere-and-not-a-drop-contaminated-by-hydraulic-fracturing/
http://eidmarcellus.org/2011/06/10/flammable-faucet-norwich/
You’ll especially like the last one.
OMG another flamer ……Look it is so easy to read a report or newspaper and say “Gas
Drilling will give your flaming water”!!!!!!
Two houses down from me has a separator for methane (NG).
My in-laws light their water on fire. Before seismic data collecting was used, explorers looked for water that could be lit on fire, that was a sign of NG rich areas.
You see when you sit on top of two world-class NG plays and 5 minor NG plays you might be able to light your water on fire!
As far as your NY Times how about the granite article that warned everyone about the radiation it produced? Do people still work in granite buildings? It seems that granite countertop business is still booming.
Responsible Journalism is dead, gone, over! Replaced by Deadline sensationalism! That is what sells papers today!
We laughed at the national enquire and now almost all papers have followed the “lead” of the inquire.
You are not here! We are and we have been lighting our water on fire
since the area was settled.
I don’t mean to be harsh but please understand.
The water lighting issue has been here forever!
We drink the methane water and yes it can add to humane natural creation of methane.
By the way sink water isn’t the only thing that we can light on fire……:)
I can not believe what im reading here. You people need to get a life. Todays energy industry is on the edge of total falure. Our debt with Chine has put a hold on every bit of natural resourses we have in America. We have not built a refinery in over 40 yrs. Over twice what they are designed to operate. Drilling has come to a stop. Coal mines are closing putting thousands out of work. Coal fired power plants closing and laying off hundres. Evironmental regulations being tightened. Our nations power grid under stain to supply what industry is left.
There will come a day when people stand up and say enough. Im afriad it will be to late…
Refinery’s closed because they are just to ols to run safely.
Offshore production shotdown because there are no refinery’s.
Natural gas prices will rise do to high demand to replace hydrocabon base transportation.
Coal mines closed do to Coal fired power plants not able to produce power and make budget do to Environmental regulations.
Wake up America, before the lights go out.
In closing
Build a safe room under ground
Supplied with at least years year of food
Buy guns and ammo lots of it.
Start unjoying life today because there is not much time left.
I have been fighting this battle for many years. On a level that would give most people nightmares.