Hydrofracking

Hydrofracking is an issue that I've been wanting to write about for some time. Each week there are dozens of articles talking about this issue, especially in New York and Pennsylvania since these two states sit above the Marcellus Shale formation and also house a large population. For those of you who are not familiar with high-volume hydraulic fracturing (aka hydrofracking or fracking), it is the process by which millions of gallons of water, chemicals, and sand are injected at a very high pressure to break apart underground shale to release natural gas. Fracking has been going on for several decades but has been plastered in the news most recently since the amount of wells have nearly doubled in the past decade, drilling is occurring in more populated areas, and there have been some disastrous consequences.

Historically, fracking wells have been drilled in rural areas, primarily in western states. Gas companies offer large sums of money to lease land from private landowners for the right to drill the fracking wells. In the past, most landowners said yes due to the large sum of money and to the claim that fracking is safe and won't have any detrimental effects on their land, livelihoods, or health. Today, most landowners are saying no. In fact, New York State has had a moratorium on fracking since 2008 and is still in a contentious debate over whether to lift the moratorium or to ban fracking completely. Here is why.

The wastewater from fracking is highly toxic and radioactive, called "produced water" by the industry, that is dangerous, difficult to dispose of, and can't be treated with the wastewater treatment technologies we currently have. The injection of toxic chemicals into the ground contaminates aquifers and drinking water supplies. These chemicals can remain lawfully undisclosed. If they were completely safe, wouldn't the gas companies want to disclose them to prove just that, especially due to the current media attention? Not only can toxic and radioactive chemicals leak into drinking water, but natural gas can seep into aquifers once the shale is broken up. There is documentation of homes and wells exploding due to gas seeping into the water--and video of people turning on their kitchen sink and lighting the water coming directly out of the tap on fire! But time and time again, the gas companies deny that fracking contaminates aquifers and/or drinking water.

Now that the gas companies want to drill in the highly populated Northeastern U.S. that sits over the coveted Marcellus Shale formation, they are facing staunch opposition. The impacts on human health and the environment have not been fully evaluated and there is no oversight or regulations in place to ensure that it's safe...even though the gas companies claim it is. Fracking is not regulated under the Clean Water Act because it deals with ground water (the CWA only regulates surface water). The most frustrating part is that the gas companies hide behind their proprietary rights to keep the ingredients in the slurry undisclosed since it's considered their "trade secret." Moreover, the contamination from fracking is non-point source pollution, therefore, the gas companies can't legally be blamed since the source of the contamination can't be proven to directly come from fracking. But if you ask people who leased their land to the gas companies, they will tell you otherwise. Their drinking water and health have been compromised. Immediately after fracking occurred in the wells near their home, their water smelled, became discolored, and would catch on fire. Soon after that, they began suffering a multitude of health problems. And this isn't an isolated incident, we're talking hundreds of cases. That's proof enough for me.

If you haven't seen the documentary Gasland yet, you should. You get a firsthand account of what people have gone through and the how fracking has destroyed their drinking water and their health. It shows you that the government and the gas companies claim no responsibility to the contamination of their drinking water. These people live in rural areas and their only choice for drinking water is to drill a well. A lot of those people have been forced to buy bottled water because their wells are contaminated. There have been people that have developed serious medical conditions, even cancer, from drinking the poisoned water. They have no choice and are told no apologies. They have to fight long battles to possibly receive little compensation, often resulting in short-term bandages put over their gushing wound: The gas companies might deliver drinking water or loan a reverse osmosis water treatment tank but often for a short period of time. Furthermore, the air quality around the wells is greatly diminished due to the operation of the wells. So both the air you breathe and the water you drink become toxic...does this sound like something you want to sign up for? Think about the health costs to you and your family. What is the price tag on your life and the lives of your loved ones? Is it really worth it?

This whole debate has the ring of "economy vs. the environment." The gas companies and proponents of fracking say that opponents are just environmentalists standing in the way of economic recovery, but it's more than that. It's a public health issue, too. We're talking about our drinking water, our lives. The truth is that fracking does not come without consequences. People in the rural western U.S. who leased their land to the gas companies a couple of decades ago weren't aware of the health risks and contamination of their drinking water that is a direct result of fracking. Today is different. People are now more aware of the process and are aware that it's not safe. I know the large sum of money being offered to landowners by the gas companies is very enticing and even necessary for some people during this difficult economic time. But what about your health? What about your family? What about your neighbors? Their water supply and health are compromised as well, without them even knowing or worse yet, without them even having a choice. Do you want that burden on your shoulders?

Paper or Plastic?...How About Cloth?

A recent New York Times article talked about the ban on plastic bags at checkout counters that was proposed in Austin, TX. It's obvious that a ban would benefit the environment...who hasn't seen a plastic bag rolling down the street like tumble weed, floating down a river just waiting to entangle a fish, or fluttering in the breeze from its roost in a fence or a tree? The bags are harmful to land and aquatic animals that consume them, they litter the roadways and waterways, and not to mention they are composed of chemicals that don't biodegrade. But of course there will be a fair amount of people enraged and/or annoyed if a ban like this were to be enacted. Right?

It turns out that this isn't the first case. Many European countries have banned plastic bags offering paper bags for a fee instead. Other communities in the U.S. have enacted a plastic bag ban as well, and in the case of a small community in Texas, it's going rather well. As with everything, it takes a while to transition but easy once you get accustomed to the change.

Plastic bags are a little out of control in my opinion. On those rare occasions when I forget my cloth bags and my groceries get bagged at the supermarket, two bags worth of groceries somehow magically multiplies into 10 plastic bags! I try to head off the bagger and say that they can be packed full to try to minimize the amount of bags s/he uses. Even when I am buying one or few items at a store, I make sure I tell the cashier immediately that I don't need a bag since it's their habit--and job--to put items in a plastic bag. On one occasion, I was buying one item and the cashier immediately put it in a plastic bag after scanning it (before I even had a chance to say 'hello'). I said that I didn't need a bag and she took my item out and threw the bag in the trash! This is an extreme example, but I think we need to start reducing our plastic bag "obsession." Of course plastic bags do have their purpose, but certainly aren't necessary all the time.

For over the last ten years or so, I would say that 99% of the natural foods stores that I have gone to (and I have lived in New York, Colorado, Hawaii, Arizona, Florida, and Vermont) give you a five cent refund per cloth or reusable bag you bring in. Up until a couple of years ago, I would get funny looks from the cashiers and baggers when I pulled out my cloth bags when asked the question 'paper or plastic?' at a supermarket. Today it's a totally different scene. Reusable bags, some even with trendy designs, are being sold in stores. There are even signs outside supermarkets reminding you to bring in your reusable bags. This is definitely a step in the right direction.

Since the reusable bag movement is becoming more mainstream, I think it's a good time to start weaning us off plastic bags. Not only are the bags themselves harmful to the environment, but think about all the water and energy it takes to produce those bags and then to distribute them. 'Aren't they recyclable?' you may be asking. Recycling consumes a lot of water and energy, too and is sometimes not as "green" as people think. In this case, it's better to use reusable/cloth bags. They can last for years and you only need to wash them every now and then which uses a significantly less amount of water and energy than getting plastic bags every time you go to the store.

You also may be thinking, 'what about paper bags? They're much better than plastic bags.' Of course paper is a much better choice than plastic--they are more readily recyclable and biodegradable--and they're a good transition to the plastic bag ban. However, they are made from trees that need to stay in the ground and not be cut down. Not only that, but they use a lot of water and energy to produce, distribute, and to recycle...even if they are made from pre- or post-consumer recycled paper.

I like the idea of a fee for plastic and/or paper bags, at about 10-25 cents per bag. This will incentivize most people to start bringing their own bags, thus reducing the total amount of plastic bags produced. Maybe then plastic bags will become an endangered species.

The Economy Vs. The Environment

President Obama's recent decision to reject the Keystone XL Pipeline has spurred a heated political debate surrounding the creation of jobs and the protection of the environment. I understand that our economy is suffering and the pipeline will no doubt create jobs, but at what cost? The environment seems to always take the back burner, especially when the economy is suffering. Environmental issues don't provide the instant gratification that most Americans crave. Even though projects and solutions that are good for the environment are better in the long run in terms of both cost and return on investment, they tend to cost more upfront, which doesn't sit well with a lot of people: We want instant results at the cheapest price. With the advancement of technology, at times it seems that we humans are invincible. Environmental impacts aren't in the forefront of everyone's mind. It's often forgotten that we need the natural world to survive. We need clean air to breathe and we need clean water to drink and we need food to eat. And where does all that come from?

Back to the pipeline, the State Department estimates only 5,000 to 6,000 jobs were to be created during the construction of the pipeline, not the original claim by TransCanada of 20,000 jobs. This is only for a couple of years, then the majority of those people who don't stay on to maintain and operate the pipeline will be out of a job. Instant gratification with no long term effects of job creation. And what about the environmental impacts? Not only will ecosystems be destroyed and habitats be fragmented, but what about our dependence on fossil fuels? What if the pipeline leaks and there's an oil spill? How much will that cost to clean up? How many more animals will be harmed and habitats destroyed? How much more can we pollute our water? Why don't we come up with a sustainable solution by turning to renewable energy that creates jobs and helps to curb carbon emissions at the same time? It would be logical to think about the future.

We are a technologically advanced nation, and we have accomplished so much so far. Let's use that intelligence and innovation to create something that's more sustainable. Things have changed and times have changed since the Industrial Revolution. We have an exponentially growing population that needs to be sustained. We can't keep living the way we're living. We can't keep consuming without replenishing. We have to evolve. Finding local solutions to local problems needs to be in the forefront of decisions. We can't keep looking at other faraway regions for our solutions. We can't build a canal from the Great Lakes to water lawns in Phoenix, AZ. That's just utterly ridiculous. Why should we consider piping oil from Canada to be refined in the Gulf Coast to then be distributed throughout the entire country? Think about all the fossil fuels consumed in that process. Why should we even be shipping oil from the Middle East to be to be guzzled by Hummers? It's insane, really. Think about it. Logically. We need to start thinking smaller, not bigger. We need to become sustainable.