Fall 2011
Frack Me Not!Or, Wow, Natural Gas Industry, That's A Shitty Energy Policy (Based on my undergraduate and graduate studies of science, engineering, economics, and environmental policy at Cornell University) This is written for general audience (without formality of jargon) but believe me, the economics and geology behind it all checks out. You can vet it. ********** We will never run out of fossil fuels. We extract the "low hanging" fossil fuel "fruit" first, then move on to sources at greater and greater cost. Eventually it becomes too expensive to extract and/or find. This is water tight. Let me repeat the essential point for clarity. We will never run out of fossil fuels, the cost of fossils fuels will only become greater and greater. The way a corporation like Halburton, Slumberger, even bomb-contractors like Lockheed Martin and Boeing, look at the "profit" equation (goal of a corporation is to maximize profit), their business practices clearly demonstrate they see YOUR resources (including natural resources and the Iraqi infrastructure) as THROUGHPUT THEY CAN PROFIT FROM and the ONLY TRICK is dealing with the (greater and greater) costs. Costs are SOCIAL, ENVIRONMENTAL, and ECONOMIC. When I was growing up in the 90s, a portion of my parent's utility bill went toward PRO Natural Gas ads during a time when, to my small child self, there was no real obvious reason why it should be necessary to promote such a seemingly wonderful energy choice. After all, was energy in my state of New York even degregulated yet? Why advertise the cheaper, cleaner choice? Here's my guess: -Energy companies literally hire Geology to understand fossil fuels (not groundwater so much, I'll add) -They've known about the MARCELLES THROUGHPUT for a long time, and know it's a hard sell -So what does the ad (call it propaganda if you like) do about dealing with the costs? How can we write them off the financial books and out of the text books? They teach us to accept or ignore the social and environmental costs (despite whatever benefits they further claim). -Meanwhile, government is (I'd argue) literally pressured, certainly given cover to, subsidize companies, technologies, industries, etc., around NATURAL GAS EXTRACTION. So we are not actually reducing the economic cost so much as investing society's resources toward the problem of getting that THROUGHPUT out so that BIG NAT can profit off you. -I'll try to slip in here subtly, they use war and resource profiteering to pay off under-informed landowners to buy consent. The best technology they've come up with is pumping carcinogens in copius quantities into the earth while creating waste water and numerous other complications they later intend to walk away from. This will either depress or amuse you or more. I say, Reagan must have seen no point to computers the size of a room. Why? Because he took the solar panel off the White House that Jimmy Carter put there, and then dismantled all the subsidizes that supported the domestic renewable energy industry causing its swift collapse. Look at the progress computers made in the 30 years since and weep for your climate. Why did we invest in FRACKING TECHNOLOGY instead of SOLAR PANEL TECHNOLOGY? Because Reagan said so. Or someone told him to. Because energy companies already knew about the shale under your feet. Dreams of fracking you go back to the 1950s, as I recall. They predate the energy crisis of the 1970s and streamroll past reality with just a little bit of energy policy trickery. Hey, BIG NAT! Fracking is pretty contraversial in my state, no? I think for an economic player of your magnitude, SINKING (economics term) so much in preliminaries and makin' such big and lofty promises, you maybe owe it to the state of New York and responsible business practice to do some overt CONTINGENCY PLANNING in case hydraulic fracturing is deemed too COSTLY (in oh so many ways) to actually go foward in OUR state. Doesn't that sound responsible? Or are you truly not accustomed to ever not getting your way? You are used to literally writing the laws, and then you can pay the legal system to litegate until you are happy with the outcome. Cause, honestly, that THROUGHPUT starts to look pretty expensive if you DON'T GET TO TOUCH ANY OF IT. (Society pays for everything one way or another.) New Yorkers, join me in a chorus of FRACK ME NOT! Or how about this one, DON'T FRACK WITH NEW YORK. |
Fall 2009
New York is truly a great state. We can claim the greatest city in the world, some of the best wilderness and wildlife in the country, as well as thriving agriculture and rural communities. Let's keep it great! Rural Upstate communities have genuine economic concerns, and it's easy to see why some see hydrofracking as an opportunity for economic development. But hydrofracking is not the answer. The benefits are temporary, and the costs outweigh these benefits. Hydrofracking is not the future. When the gas has been extracted and the profits reaped, the gas companies will move on and leave us back where we began (along with a whole new set of problems). Hydrofracking isn't real economic development. Instead of waging our economic stakes on hydrofracking, let's invest in real, sustainable economic development. Renewable energy is the future. Local agriculture and green industries are the future. High-speed rail and data linkages are the future. Instead of trading our environmental quality for temporary gains, let's build on what makes New York special. Let's attract new business with good quality of life, not by trashing the environment. The future is clean air and clear water. The future is cultural opportunies-- music, sports, cuisine, art, etc. New York State is way ahead in the game, so let's not throw it away! This is an uphill battle so we all need to work together and do what each of us can. Tell everyone you know about hydrofracking. This is everyone's problem, and sticking our heads in the sand won't keep us safe. But when we stand together, we can turn back any threat. Hydrofracking? No fracking way! |