Pennsylvania

Until you see it for yourself, you can't fully appreciate what fracking does to a community. As Patti and I drove deep into the hills of Pennsylvania just south of the New York border, the first thing we noticed was the trucks on the road.

It's not just that they're really big. It's that there are so many of them. One after another, they race along tiny back roads, gears grinding, exhaust stacks belching and engines roaring as they head to or from fracking sites carrying steel tubes, diesel engines, silica sand, fracking chemicals, fresh water or toxic waste - destined for who knows where?

White pickup trucks dart around the countryside like large beetles carrying men in hard hats with grim expressions. (White, signifying purity, seems to be the color of choice for oil and gas companies and their ubiquitous security teams that keep onlookers and other undesirables - like us - far away from actual fracking sites.)

All over Susquehanna County, large swaths of forest and pastures are being hacked out and excavated to make way for giant pipelines used to connect the gas wells with sprawling compressor sites miles away. These gashes in the landscape serve as an apt metaphor for what's going on inside the community, as fracking - and the money it might bring to some - has divided families, neighbors and towns in a battle over the right of some to endanger the environment for all.

We met some truly amazing individuals on our visit  to Susquehanna County - brave, inspiring individuals who are standing up for what's right, refusing to back down in the face of almost inconceivable odds. We were humbled to be in their presence and witness their strength of character.

We're creating some radio spots featuring the voices of the people we met in Pennsylvania. We hope their stories can inform the debate on fracking in New York. 

Creating Science

In his recent mini-documentary "Is the Sky Pink?," filmmaker Josh Fox touches on one of the key reasons why government is so often stymied in its efforts to protect public health.  So long as there is a "debate" over something, regulation and legislation can be postponed until the science becomes "clear."  

And so long as there are scientists and academic institutions ready to abandon ethics when money comes along, "debates" can be manufactured to suit the circumstances, and efforts to protect public health can be delayed indefinitely.

A recent article in Bloomberg News illustrates how oil and gas companies engaged in fracking have paid research scientists and even state universities to literally create science that supports fracking.  The practice gives new meaning to the term "creationism."

Last week, Grassroots compiled and delivered to NY Governor Cuomo a Digest of Independent Science on Fracking. By "independent," we mean just that - studies and reports that were conducted by scientists for whom the word integrity still has meaning, and who respect the role of honest science in helping to inform - rather than obfuscate - the public discourse. 

We salute their work, and sincerely hope that the Governor will take the time to read through the Digest we delivered to him. If he does, he'll know exactly what to do about fracking in New York. 

What Does the DOH Know About Fracking?

On April 25, 2011 Grassroots filed a Freedom of Information Law request with the NYS DOH, asking for all communications between the DOH and the DEC on the issue of human health effects related to fracking. We were hoping to receive this information during the DEC's public comment period, since health issues have dominated much of the public discussion. (The comment period ends January 11th).

The DOH failed four times over the past eight months to meet their own response deadlines, most recently on December 23rd. The delay now stands at 256 days.

We believe the DOH is engaged in effective denial of our request in violation of the law. Given that DEC Commissioner Martens has testified that the DOH was "intensely involved" with the DEC on the issue of fracking, and given the high degree of public interest over human health issues related to fracking, this decision by the DOH to withhold information vital to the public interest is deeply troubling.

We are appealing the DOH action, but it will take time to go through the legal process required before court action can be initiated. In the meantime we encourage all of those who share our concerns to call Dr. Nirav Shah, the Commissioner of the DOH at (518) 474-2011 and demand release of the information.

The Case Against Fracking

Recent Op-Ed pieces in prominent newspapers have suggested that with proper regulatory oversight, hydraulic fracturing or "fracking" can be accomplished safely in New York, reducing our dependence on foreign oil and bringing much needed economic benefits to hard-hit areas of the state. If the issue was that simple, and if the statements were true, surely everyone would be in favor.

But the facts don't support these statements, and the issue is not as simple as the TV ads would have citizens believe. Fracking is an inherently dangerous and destructive extreme form of energy extraction that brings with it a myriad of serious environmental and economic problems. Now that we have the opportunity to see how fracking has actually impacted citizens in Pennsylvania and other states, we can more easily distinguish fact from fantasy and make smarter choices for New York.

It's an undisputed fact - although seldom acknowledged by those who make their fortunes by selling energy - that we have the ability to reduce our dependence on foreign oil anytime we want. Dollar for dollar, watt for watt, when it comes to looking for new sources of energy, nothing comes even remotely close to the energy reserves available to us through conservation. No cost, no pollution, no need for government oversight or environmental concern. All that is required is better planning and smarter thinking.

But what about the economic benefits of fracking? Scholarly studies have come down on both sides. Those not sponsored by the gas industry tend to highlight the temporary nature and low-skill level of jobs associated with fracking, and the fleeting economic benefits communities may experience. After all, this highly technical and dangerous work requires highly trained workers who generally come from out of state to work on the rigs, then move on. Local folks may be needed to pour the coffee or flip the burgers, but once the frackers are done, so are those jobs.

What few politicians will admit is that the real economic benefits of fracking accrue to them personally, in the form of large campaign contributions from oil and gas interests. A recent study by Common Cause revealed that gas industry has spent $20 million on the campaigns of current members of Congress. New York politicians have received hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions, according to public sources.

And let's not overlook the real and measurable impacts fracking wreaks on the environment. Contaminated air, for example, is an absolute certainty with fracking, not the potential result of some future accident. The exhaust from thousands of diesel trucks, added to that of generators, pumps and support equipment significantly pollutes the air quality not only in the immediate surrounding area but for hundreds of miles downwind. Exposure to diesel exhaust is a proven cause of both asthma and lung cancer. In areas of Wyoming near fracking operations, air pollution has been measured at levels higher than in downtown Los Angeles.

Environmental concerns also include potential contamination of public water supplies (as has already happened in Dimock, Pennsylvania), the dumping of toxic fracking sludge in remote wooded areas (as happened last week in Pennsylvania) and the transportation of radioactive wastewater to Long Island for processing in local water treatment plants, as contemplated by New York's Department of Environmental Conservation.

Despite the calm assurances of the oil and gas industry and their supporters, we've seen what can happen when industry promises that inherently dangerous activities will be made safe by rigorous oversight.

Exxon promised to carefully transport oil through Prudhoe Bay. BP promised that they would drill safely in the Gulf of Mexico. The engineers at Fukushima promised their safety systems would protect the public. In each case, government regulations were in place to protect us. In each case, they failed.

So here we go again. Money is flowing to politicians, and the airwaves are filled with happy talk about our newfound energy wealth. Will we learn this time, or will we repeat the mistakes of the past? Will New York become a center for green energy and a source of true economic growth, or will we mortgage our children's future so that a few people can make a killing in a dying industry?

How Green Is My Town?

We're really excited to re-introduce How Green Is My Town?, a simple checklist for towns across America to measure their progress on issues related to climate change, sustainability and environmental health.

It's much more than just a checklist of course. How Green Is My Town? is a blueprint for action and a gateway to hundreds of good ideas from all over the country.

For instance, does your town have a comprehensive environmental policy, or is it a patchwork of initiatives divided among various departments? If it's the latter, chances are good that your town is missing an opportunity (or is it responsibility?) to be part of the solution.

But not to worry. How Green Is My Town? has a simple policy any town can adopt right now, plus links to governmental agencies and non-profit organizations that are ready to help your town get started.

Sixty four questions. Sixty four solutions. All in one place.

So, how is your town doing in it's effort to be green? Now you can find out. Visit How Green Is My Town?

It's A Wireless World, But Is It Safe?

The mad rush to integrate wireless technology into every aspect of our lives is racing ahead, fueled by a powerful and relentless telecommunications industry. Speculators hoping to cash in on the boom, and political leaders (and consumers) are woefully unaware of emerging science linking wireless exposure to negative health effects. But the voices of caution are beginning to make themselves heard, and it may be just in time.

Our guest a few weeks ago on our Green Street radio show, Deborah Kopald, was eloquent in her description of the problems inherent in wireless technology, and what may be in store for us in the future unless we act quickly. Among other things, she alerted us to the actions of the FCC, which is supporting the dismantling of the current national wired infrastructure. This action will result in the eventual but unavoidable adoption of wireless technology for virtually all communications.

While the opponents of wireless don't yet have enough research to conclusively prove the link between chronic low-level exposure to non-ionizing radiation and cancer and other health effects, there is mounting evidence pointing in that direction. As a result, other countries (where governments may be less prone to industry pressure) are acting to protect their citizens by limiting the use of wireless technologies, and in some cases, removing existing wireless installations.

At the very least, we need to protect our most vulnerable populations - children and pregnant women - from needless exposure to wireless radiation. Schools should be "wireless-free" zones, and women who are expecting should learn to un-plug wireless tranmitters at home when not in use, especially wireless baby monitors.

It's frustrating that the burden of protecting the health of the citizens in this country is being borne increasingly by individuals and non-profits, instead of the government which has both the resources and the responsibility.

The "Kill" Switch

For a few years after college, our daughter Maggie, a trained architect and green designer, had a small business helping clients make their homes and apartments healthy and energy-efficient places to live. Many of her clients had small children, and one of the things Maggie always recommended was a "kill switch" in the child's bedroom that would shut off all the power in the room to eliminate electro-magnetic fields, as well as save energy.

The political uproar over fracking in New York reminds me once again how companies with money and political connections can force us to have the wrong conversations about energy - conversations which are divisive, unnecessary, and which successfully divert our attention from the obvious truths right under our collective noses.

Hands down, the cleanest, cheapest and most abundant energy resource in America today - and one we can utilize tomorrow without building infrastructure or power plants - is conservation. The potential of conservation dwarfs the alleged potential of fracking, or even nuclear energy. According to a study from the German Aersoapce Centre, a 47% reduction in worldwide energy demand is possible in the future if we get serious about it.

Which brings me back to Maggie and the Kill Switch. Shouldn't every home, apartment and business be required to have an "Energy Kill Switch" just inside the front door that would automatically adjust the thermostats and shut off power to every non-essential outlet? Keep power to the refrigerator, the freezer and the alarm system, but kill the lights, the computer, the cable box and all our other appliances that are plugged in and draining small - but measurable - amounts of energy every minute?

We could generate tens of thousands of jobs, reduce greenhouse gases and save billions of dollars while we reduce our energy requirements and finally achieve true energy independence. As a side benefit, we could tell the fracking companies to go home.