| |||||||
| |||||||
| |||||||
Thursday, December 25, 2014
A Message from Sandra Steingraber: Fracking Ban Celebration January 7
Sunday, December 21, 2014
Hydraulic Fracturing Banned in New York State December 17, 2014
THE ISSUE:
New York is banning the drilling for natural gas using hydraulic fracturing.
THE STAKES:
Growing evidence about the risks posed by the process make it the right decision.
Gov. Andrew Cuomo always promised that he would let science determine New York's future course when it comes to fracking.
In announcing Wednesday the state will formally ban high volume hydraulic fracturing, the controversial process of pumping water, sand and chemicals deep into the ground to release and extract natural gas, the governor delivered on that promise.
In that, Mr. Cuomo deferred to the recommendation of his acting health commissioner, Dr. Howard Zucker, who released a 176-page, two-year health study that found widespread fracking will likely contaminate the state's air and water and pose significant health risks to residents of the communities around the drilling sites.
Dr. Zucker's compelling conclusion, in which he posed the question of whether he would raise his family near a drilling site, put it best: "After looking at the plethora of reports behind me ... my answer is no."
In banning fracking, New York goes against the trend in which a growing number of states are attempting to cash in on a natural gas boom. But that very boom provided state Health Department researchers the abundant and ever-expanding foundation of data that led to their overwhelming conclusion. States where fracking has been under way are experiencing myriad problems with methane, benzene and other volatile organic compounds polluting the groundwater and air. Data also link the gas drilling process with earthquakes.
In 2009, when New York land owners and developers were urging at least limited fracking to tap the gas-rich Marcellus shale formation, only six peer-reviewed studies on the environmental health impact of the hydraulic drilling process were available. Today, 154 such reports have been completed, examining various types of drilling operations in Pennsylvania, Colorado, Texas and elsewhere, according to Physicians, Scientists & Engineers for Health Energy, a New York-based group opposed to hydrofracking. Long-term studies also are under way, which the group believes will reveal cancer and respiratory problems for residents of the communities where there is gas drilling.
Skeptics may say Gov. Cuomo's decision was politically easy, coming during an oil glut that has reduced demand for natural gas. But by instituting an outright ban on fracking, the Democratic governor is already taking political hits from the drilling industry and many Republicans, particularly in the financially pressed Southern Tier and Western New York. Even there, however, fracking's wisdom is disputed by many.
Now the governor and his staff must follow through on his pledge to find alternative and safer economic development opportunities for those areas, which have been struggling for decades.
Scientific research will continue on fracking, and surely technological improvements will, as well. There might come a time when the process is safe enough for some use in New York. But the science today is clear: that time isn't now.
New York is banning the drilling for natural gas using hydraulic fracturing.
THE STAKES:
Growing evidence about the risks posed by the process make it the right decision.
Gov. Andrew Cuomo always promised that he would let science determine New York's future course when it comes to fracking.
In announcing Wednesday the state will formally ban high volume hydraulic fracturing, the controversial process of pumping water, sand and chemicals deep into the ground to release and extract natural gas, the governor delivered on that promise.
In that, Mr. Cuomo deferred to the recommendation of his acting health commissioner, Dr. Howard Zucker, who released a 176-page, two-year health study that found widespread fracking will likely contaminate the state's air and water and pose significant health risks to residents of the communities around the drilling sites.
Dr. Zucker's compelling conclusion, in which he posed the question of whether he would raise his family near a drilling site, put it best: "After looking at the plethora of reports behind me ... my answer is no."
In banning fracking, New York goes against the trend in which a growing number of states are attempting to cash in on a natural gas boom. But that very boom provided state Health Department researchers the abundant and ever-expanding foundation of data that led to their overwhelming conclusion. States where fracking has been under way are experiencing myriad problems with methane, benzene and other volatile organic compounds polluting the groundwater and air. Data also link the gas drilling process with earthquakes.
In 2009, when New York land owners and developers were urging at least limited fracking to tap the gas-rich Marcellus shale formation, only six peer-reviewed studies on the environmental health impact of the hydraulic drilling process were available. Today, 154 such reports have been completed, examining various types of drilling operations in Pennsylvania, Colorado, Texas and elsewhere, according to Physicians, Scientists & Engineers for Health Energy, a New York-based group opposed to hydrofracking. Long-term studies also are under way, which the group believes will reveal cancer and respiratory problems for residents of the communities where there is gas drilling.
Skeptics may say Gov. Cuomo's decision was politically easy, coming during an oil glut that has reduced demand for natural gas. But by instituting an outright ban on fracking, the Democratic governor is already taking political hits from the drilling industry and many Republicans, particularly in the financially pressed Southern Tier and Western New York. Even there, however, fracking's wisdom is disputed by many.
Now the governor and his staff must follow through on his pledge to find alternative and safer economic development opportunities for those areas, which have been struggling for decades.
Scientific research will continue on fracking, and surely technological improvements will, as well. There might come a time when the process is safe enough for some use in New York. But the science today is clear: that time isn't now.
To comment: tuletters@timesunion.com or at http://blog.timesunion.com/opinion
Tuesday, December 9, 2014
Alan Chartock: Gov. Andrew Cuomo Should Close Door on Fracking
When politicians take money for their campaign coffers, they owe something back. That’s because there is honor among, well, politicians and lobbyists. If you see tons of money going to politicians from the real estate industry, you’d be foolish not to think that the people who own hotels and other big buildings want something back for their bucks. As Festus Haggen used to say on Gunsmoke, “Don’t you see?”
Now everyone is waiting to see whether Gov. Andrew Cuomo will allow hydro-fracking in New York State. Cuomo is brilliant at both political strategy and fund raising (about $45 million for the last campaign) but he is caught up in a huge pincer movement between those who hate the idea of potentially polluting our water and further despoiling our air and those who want to make a buck from fracking. My hero, legendary folk singer Pete Seeger, put it to Cuomo this way: “Your father was perhaps the best governor New York State ever had and if you take the money that they want to give you for going along with fracking and injuring people for generations to come, you will go down as perhaps the worst.” Those were pretty powerful words and I suspect they left Cuomo reeling.
Hydrofracking puts Cuomo between a rock and a hard place. He doesn’t know what to do. As a result of this predicament, the governor’s top people were almost certainly told to stall. So first the commissioner in charge of environmental conservation studied the problem to death and then transferred the ball to the health commissioner who eventually resigned and went elsewhere. It’s tough to be a medical professional of first rank and have to carry a governor’s political water.
Many people speculated that once Cuomo got through the election he would call for a modified fracking plan for New York whereby localities that voted to allow fracking would be allowed to “Drill baby drill” under strict supervision. They suspected that the Solomon-like Cuomo would attempt to cut the baby in half. Once the door was open, however, the genie would be out of the bottle and fracking would become a reality in the Empire State. But not so fast — there are some intervening political realities.
Cuomo has lost many voters on the left wing of the Democratic Party. Having styled himself as a social progressive and a pro-business fiscal conservative, the governor is getting beaten up by the more progressive members of his party. Fracking is no exception. A recent Pew poll showed that fracking is getting more and more unpopular among Democrats. So now the rock and the hard place are even closer together. After all, Cuomo got a million fewer votes in the last election than he got the time before. Many of those lost votes were those of angry Democrats who just stayed home. Since Cuomo is much smarter than I am, he’s got to understand that by accepting the money and not taking Pete Seeger’s advice against advancing fracking, he will lose even more of his natural voters.
The truth is that while there seems to be a good deal of evidence that fracking is dangerous, it is even more significant that we simply don’t know exactly what the process will do to our water supply. Why in the world would we take a chance on risking our water, the most important thing on earth when it comes to human survival? People simply have to know that their governor is looking out for them and not for money to run for political office. While he clearly doesn’t want or need my advice, Gov. Cuomo really should close the door on fracking. That’s when the people will know that he cares about them. Sometimes doing the right thing is more important than playing the political game.
Sunday Freeman columnist Alan Chartock is a professor emeritus at the State University of New York, publisher of the Legislative Gazette and president and CEO of the WAMC Northeast Public Radio Network. Readers can email him at alan@wamc.org.
Now everyone is waiting to see whether Gov. Andrew Cuomo will allow hydro-fracking in New York State. Cuomo is brilliant at both political strategy and fund raising (about $45 million for the last campaign) but he is caught up in a huge pincer movement between those who hate the idea of potentially polluting our water and further despoiling our air and those who want to make a buck from fracking. My hero, legendary folk singer Pete Seeger, put it to Cuomo this way: “Your father was perhaps the best governor New York State ever had and if you take the money that they want to give you for going along with fracking and injuring people for generations to come, you will go down as perhaps the worst.” Those were pretty powerful words and I suspect they left Cuomo reeling.
Hydrofracking puts Cuomo between a rock and a hard place. He doesn’t know what to do. As a result of this predicament, the governor’s top people were almost certainly told to stall. So first the commissioner in charge of environmental conservation studied the problem to death and then transferred the ball to the health commissioner who eventually resigned and went elsewhere. It’s tough to be a medical professional of first rank and have to carry a governor’s political water.
Many people speculated that once Cuomo got through the election he would call for a modified fracking plan for New York whereby localities that voted to allow fracking would be allowed to “Drill baby drill” under strict supervision. They suspected that the Solomon-like Cuomo would attempt to cut the baby in half. Once the door was open, however, the genie would be out of the bottle and fracking would become a reality in the Empire State. But not so fast — there are some intervening political realities.
Cuomo has lost many voters on the left wing of the Democratic Party. Having styled himself as a social progressive and a pro-business fiscal conservative, the governor is getting beaten up by the more progressive members of his party. Fracking is no exception. A recent Pew poll showed that fracking is getting more and more unpopular among Democrats. So now the rock and the hard place are even closer together. After all, Cuomo got a million fewer votes in the last election than he got the time before. Many of those lost votes were those of angry Democrats who just stayed home. Since Cuomo is much smarter than I am, he’s got to understand that by accepting the money and not taking Pete Seeger’s advice against advancing fracking, he will lose even more of his natural voters.
The truth is that while there seems to be a good deal of evidence that fracking is dangerous, it is even more significant that we simply don’t know exactly what the process will do to our water supply. Why in the world would we take a chance on risking our water, the most important thing on earth when it comes to human survival? People simply have to know that their governor is looking out for them and not for money to run for political office. While he clearly doesn’t want or need my advice, Gov. Cuomo really should close the door on fracking. That’s when the people will know that he cares about them. Sometimes doing the right thing is more important than playing the political game.
Sunday Freeman columnist Alan Chartock is a professor emeritus at the State University of New York, publisher of the Legislative Gazette and president and CEO of the WAMC Northeast Public Radio Network. Readers can email him at alan@wamc.org.
Thursday, November 6, 2014
A Message from Zephyr Teachout
|
Saturday, October 4, 2014
GLOBAL FRACKDOWN OCTOBER 11: OTSEGO LAKE
Put
on your walking shoes, grab your helmet and bike, or hop in your canoe/kayak
On
October 11th to
Rally
‘Round Otsego’s Waters (RROW)
As part of this year’s
Global Frackdown, we are once again celebrating our Otsego waters, headwaters
to the mighty Susquehanna River and life force of our environment. While we are
gathering at Otsego Lake, this is a celebration of all of
Otsego’s waters – Gilbert Lake, Canadarago Lake, Goodyear Lake, Summit Lake,
and all the many ponds and streams and creeks that course toward the rivers.
Come celebrate the health of your favorite body of water!
Walkers will leave Lake Front Park in Cooperstown at 10:00am,
walk up the east side of Otsego Lake and arrive at the West Pavilion in
Glimmerglass State Park at approximately 12:30pm. Cyclists will leave from
Lakefront at 11 am. Shuttles will provide transportation between the two parks
throughout the walk. Participants will be able to join or leave the walk along
the route and walk whatever distance they are comfortable with. Kayakers and
canoeists will meet at Glimmerglass State Park at 10:00 for launching at 10:30
am. Bring life vests and appropriate safety gear and clothing appropriate for
the water temperature. Boaters will paddle along the shoreline in a group
around Hyde Bay and return to Glimmerglass.
At Glimmerglass, lunch will be provided for everyone via
potluck volunteers, along with live music by Heaven's Back Door. At 2:00pm,
those who wish to participate in the return walk to Lake Front will leave
Glimmerglass and arrive at Lake Front at approximately 4:30.
If you want to Rally ‘Round Otsego’s Waters but don’t want to walk, bike, or paddle, we would love volunteers to drive shuttles and bring potluck dishes. To sign up for the event as a participant or volunteer, please contact Cat Gareth, catgareth@yahoo.com. Sponsored by Otsego 2000. Other sponsors welcome!
If you want to Rally ‘Round Otsego’s Waters but don’t want to walk, bike, or paddle, we would love volunteers to drive shuttles and bring potluck dishes. To sign up for the event as a participant or volunteer, please contact Cat Gareth, catgareth@yahoo.com. Sponsored by Otsego 2000. Other sponsors welcome!
Wednesday, October 1, 2014
Tipping Point: The People's Climate March September 21, 2014
Dave Pruett
Former
NASA researcher; Emeritus Professor of Mathematics, James Madison University
Tipping Point: The People's Climate March
Posted: 09/30/2014 8:49 am EDT
"If the planet dies, all causes are lost causes." -- Anonymous
Humanity's fate hangs on a tight race between two tipping points: a scientific one and a cognitive one.
Scientists
use the term "tipping point" to refer to a runaway feedback loop that,
when triggered, abruptly and irreversibly changes the behavior of a
system, such as the climate. For example, when permafrost melts, it
releases methane, 50 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than carbon
dioxide. Thus: global warming, melting permafrost, more atmospheric
methane, more global warming. The worrisome cycle can easily spin out of
control.
But there's another climate tipping
point: the tipping point of public awareness. If the level of climate
awareness tips before climate catastrophe, we just might salvage a
viable future. And if so,
historians of that future will record September 21, 2014, as the day
that saved planet Earth.
I had planned to attend the People's Climate March (PCM). Our small town chartered two coaches -- bound for the Big Apple -- and packed them to
capacity. Alas, a knee injury sidelined me. My wife and daughter marched. Spellbound, I watched the event live-streamed from Democracy Now!
Organizers
had anticipated 100,000 marchers; in their wildest dreams they hoped
for 200,000. Early Sunday afternoon the numbers exceeded 300,000 and
kept climbing. As marchers spilled in from side streets, the procession
swelled and stretched, ultimately reaching four miles in length and
gathering up at least 400,000. A drone captured this aerial view.
The
environmental equivalent of the 1963 civil rights march on Washington, the PCM was undoubtedly an historical watershed.
But
unlike the civil rights and anti-war movements of the 1950s and 1960s,
during which the media daily brought police brutality and body bags to
our living-room TVs, the mainstream media has been conspicuously AWOL or
unreliable on the climate. ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and Fox all ignored the
PCM or treated it as an afterthought. Even NPR downplayed the event. We
can only conclude that corporate media has as a stake in the status quo,
even when business as usual is stealing the future. For genuine news,
it has become necessary to frequent refreshing alternatives such as Democracy Now!, which covered the PCM live for three hours, The Guardian, Nation of Change, and Common Dreams, among others.
I'm no journalist, but for those who missed the significance of this singular
moment due to the mainstream media's abdication of responsibility, permit me a few reflections on why the PCM was monumental.
First,
it was huge: eight times the size of the largest previous climate
march. I've learned a little rule of thumb from local politics. For
every person who shows up for a protest, 10 others wanted to be there
but couldn't, and perhaps 100 others sympathize with the cause. The
sheer size of the PCM implies that Americans are finally waking up. The
rest of the world, it's worth noting, has long been awake on the issue
of climate.
Second, although I can't claim this
as gospel truth, I suspect the PCM gathered the largest coalition of
groups since D-Day, and perhaps more. There were, of course, the usual
suspects, the environmental groups: 350.org
(the primary organizer), Sierra Club, Green Peace, Climate Justice, the
Rainforest Action Network, and so on. But these comprised
just the tip of an iceberg gargantuan enough to sink the Titanic of
climate denial.
Also present were numerous
unions, from the AFL-CIO, to the UAW, to the Domestic Workers Union, to
the Amalgamated Transit Union. Not surprisingly, Occupy Wall Street was
there also, because the 1 percent that is screwing the 99 percent
economically is also screwing us climatically.
Women
were out in full force. In addition to stalwart groups like now NOW and
Code Pink, there were Mom's Clean Air Force and the Raging Grannies,
lobbying for climate action to secure a future for their children and
grandchildren, respectively.
All manner of
medical workers were present: Physicians (and Psychologists) for Social
Responsibility and the New York Professional Nurses Union, for example.
Why? For many reasons, among them climate change's impact on the spread
of tropical diseases and the increasing
frequency of asthma and respiratory illnesses due to atmospheric
pollution.
Anti-war (including Veterans for
Peace) and anti-nuke protestors were there, because addiction to fossil
fuels keeps us perpetually at war, and because nuclear power plants are
ticking time bombs. Renewable energy solves both problems.
Citizens
of 150 counties attended, represented by groups as diverse as South
Asians for Climate Justice and the Eco-Sikhs. Marshall Islanders, for
example, live on average just 6 feet above sea level. Their ambassador
marched to draw attention to the devastation the island nation has
already suffered from rising seas. The Survivors of Sandy marched too,
for much the same reasons as Marshall Islanders.
Indigenous
groups from around the world were front and center, because they've
known from time immemorial that to dishonor Mother Earth is the worst
form of
insanity.
Students from hundreds of colleges
marched because their futures are jeopardized by an unstable climate and
continual war over oil, land, and water.
Communities
of faith, awakening to the moral and spiritual implications of climate
change, were represented by tens of thousands of marchers.
Scientists marched too, proclaiming unapologetically: "The 'Debate' Is Over."
Two
dear friends, Harvard grads both, marched with Divest Harvard,
determined to end profiteering by the fossil-fuel industry, which has
declared war on the Earth's life-support systems.
In
all, 1400 organizations participated, each with a unique identity, yet
united in solidarity for one mega-cause: to rescue planet Earth from
the stranglehold of fossil fuel. And speaking of solidarity, there were
2646 solidarity events held in 162
countries.
Finally, the PCM, unlike mass
demonstrations of the past, was truly a "People's" march. Sure, there
was no shortage of celebrities, politicians, and climate gurus:
environmentalist and principal organizer Bill McKibben, U.S. Senators
Bernie Sanders and Sheldon Whitehouse, former vice-president Al Gore.
Susan Sarandon and Leonardo DiCaprio marched. So did UN Secretary
General Ban-Ki Moon, alongside world-revered primatologist Jane Goodall.
But
there were no major speeches by the organizers or the celebrated.
Instead, there was a moment of silence followed by a deafening roar that
coursed like a wave through the four-mile throng. Some called this a
wake-up alarm, intended for those whose heads are buried in the sand,
whose ears are filled with wax, or whose souls are deadened by greed
and/or power.
There was no need for speeches.
The faces, costumes, placards, and
signs said it all: "The Greatest Danger to Our Future is Apathy," "Stop
the War on Mother Earth," "There Is No Planet B," "We Are All in the
Same Boat."
Sunday, September 14, 2014
|
|
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)