If you have not heard about the debate swirling the extraction of natural gas for the last two years, you may need to come out from under that rock. It has been the source of much contention here in the east, but the drilling and its associated problems is also very common out west. Natural gas has been deemed a much cleaner fossil fuel, and while that may be true, the methods with which it is produced are shrouded in controversy. The industry claims that the process of hydrofracking (shooting chemically laced water into rock containing natural gas in order to release it) is safe and does negligible damage to the surrounding environment. The truth, however, has come to light in many areas where the drilling has been allowed about the damages that the extraction process and fluid has caused. It has been a growing source of contention here in New York since it became known that drillers are interested in extracting in the area of New York City's watershed, threatening it's source of water for millions of people.
This has been a source of such great controversy because it has the potential of bringing jobs to many people in the beleaguered rural portions of the nation. It's process produces a much cleaner alternative to oil as an energy source, and there is a great abundance of it in this country. The dangers, however, are equally as great in scale. Leaking gas from pipelines distributing the product abound. Explosions at the drilling site are common occurrences which bring the added threat of wildfire. The threat to clean water supplies across the country, especially in heavily populated areas downstream, is enough for us as citizens to demand a closer look, and at least a regulated approach to hydrofracking.
The EPA has been struggling to find a way to deal with this issue. Since 2005, thanks to Dick Cheney and other Republicans, the oil and gas companies have been exempted from the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts. What's more, the EPA cannot even determine the danger that hydrofracking fluid poses because the producer of the fluid, Halliburton, claims that it is a company asset and that releasing the makeup of the solution would give competitors who don't use Halliburton's product an unfair advantage. Never mind that they have an unfair advantage in using this product and charge large sums of money to gas companies that want to use it.
The threat has become too real, however, and the evidence of the damage caused by the hydrofracking process has spurred the EPA to come up with a plan to regulate at least the wastewater disposal portion of the process. This is definitely a step in the right direction. Much more needs to be done, requiring the gas extraction companies to be accountable and responsible for what they do to the environment in order to run their business. The EPA will face an uphill battle on this issue to be sure. Note one elected official in the EPA article that suggests that there isn't even a problem, so why is there a need for a solution? The oil and gas companies will lobby and use their money to persuade elected officials to stop the EPA from carrying out its planned regulation of hydrofracking wastewater. They may even continue to petition the public with PSAs in order to decry the efforts of the EPA.
Here's where we come in. Those who desire a basic accountability and responsibility of the companies who extract fossil fuels need to call and write their elected officials nonstop and demand that they not cave to the oil and gas companies and allow the EPA to regulate that process so that we don't end up with environmental catastrophe. Those of us who want greater accountability need to push our elected representatives to give the EPA more power in regulating and banning those things that are harmful to our environment, and ultimately, to us. We need to stand behind the EPA. It is our responsibility to the environment.
This has been a source of such great controversy because it has the potential of bringing jobs to many people in the beleaguered rural portions of the nation. It's process produces a much cleaner alternative to oil as an energy source, and there is a great abundance of it in this country. The dangers, however, are equally as great in scale. Leaking gas from pipelines distributing the product abound. Explosions at the drilling site are common occurrences which bring the added threat of wildfire. The threat to clean water supplies across the country, especially in heavily populated areas downstream, is enough for us as citizens to demand a closer look, and at least a regulated approach to hydrofracking.
The EPA has been struggling to find a way to deal with this issue. Since 2005, thanks to Dick Cheney and other Republicans, the oil and gas companies have been exempted from the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts. What's more, the EPA cannot even determine the danger that hydrofracking fluid poses because the producer of the fluid, Halliburton, claims that it is a company asset and that releasing the makeup of the solution would give competitors who don't use Halliburton's product an unfair advantage. Never mind that they have an unfair advantage in using this product and charge large sums of money to gas companies that want to use it.
The threat has become too real, however, and the evidence of the damage caused by the hydrofracking process has spurred the EPA to come up with a plan to regulate at least the wastewater disposal portion of the process. This is definitely a step in the right direction. Much more needs to be done, requiring the gas extraction companies to be accountable and responsible for what they do to the environment in order to run their business. The EPA will face an uphill battle on this issue to be sure. Note one elected official in the EPA article that suggests that there isn't even a problem, so why is there a need for a solution? The oil and gas companies will lobby and use their money to persuade elected officials to stop the EPA from carrying out its planned regulation of hydrofracking wastewater. They may even continue to petition the public with PSAs in order to decry the efforts of the EPA.
Here's where we come in. Those who desire a basic accountability and responsibility of the companies who extract fossil fuels need to call and write their elected officials nonstop and demand that they not cave to the oil and gas companies and allow the EPA to regulate that process so that we don't end up with environmental catastrophe. Those of us who want greater accountability need to push our elected representatives to give the EPA more power in regulating and banning those things that are harmful to our environment, and ultimately, to us. We need to stand behind the EPA. It is our responsibility to the environment.
No comments:
Post a Comment