OnEarth Magazine: Subscribe | Current Issue
Your OnEarth: Login / Register
Groundbreaking journalism needs your support
SUBSCRIBE TODAY and enjoy a special introductory offer: A full year for just $15!

Poseidon Lost

We thought the sea was infinite and inexhaustible. It is not. Calling for a new vision to save our oceans. Table of Contents | Digital Edition
Guardian Environmental Network

Opinions and observations from environmental experts, activists, and luminaries
Disturbing, yes, because we are counting on the state to regulate wells that it does not know about and cannot find. But even more disturbing, to pick up on our previous dialogue, is the allowing of fracking itself. Better arithmetic and data management about where the wells are would not solve the problems associated with fracking. If you have not read it, I'd recommend Dr. Sandra Steingraber's recent remarks in a presentation she called "Taking the Handle Off the Fracking Pump: Human Rights and the Role of Public Health Inquiry in an Age of Extreme Fossil Fuel Extraction." In this presentation she goes to the very heart of why you should consider more seriously the need for a moratorium. In fact at one point she speaks directly to the debate we have been having when she states: "So the debate about fracking goes way beyond coal versus gas." You have tunnel vision about that, John, and it bothers me a great deal. Your tacit approval of this industry's basic technology, and your refusal to call for a moratorium, is more damaging to our efforts to protect our state from ruin than is all the bloviating of all the industry shills and all the bought-off politicians in Harrisburg, It is your approval they need and it is your approval they have. I hope you will read Dr. Steingraber's speech and let us all know how you can stand being attached as you are to this industry. You can find that speech here: http://www.psehealthyenergy.org/data/Steingraber.pdf ....and you may also want to read some of the other presentations on the health impacts of unconventional drilling that are here: http://www.psehealthyenergy.org/site/view/971
I will read the speech. But I won't wait to comment. I am not attached to anything except a sincere desire to help find a way forward in the real world. Being in favor of a moratorium has become for many the litmus test on shale gas. "You're either with us or with the drillers." That is unfair, irresponsible, and ultimately destructive of the environmental cause.
Thanks for agreeing to read the Steingraber speech, John. I will be very interested to read your reactions.
Steingraber's speech is eloquent and compelling Her 4 suggestions are exactly the kind of actions relative to public health that should be taken immediately. We urgently need to focus science on these and other issues with a goal of prevention, not mitigation. Let science rule. Regarding the immediate and urgent threat of climate change, as she says, "In the real world, we have no energy plan. There is no deal to swap out coal for gas." We must have that, too. That is where people rule. I and others have talked about gas as a short bridge to renewables. That bridge must be made as short as possible. All of these challenges can be met with concentrated action. All must be faced. We need every oar in the water.
I agree that "we need every oar in the water" and the last thing I want to do is to have people in the boat rowing in different directions of being set against one another. I appreciate, for example, that Jan Jarrett is trying as hard as she can to get some stiff regulations in place to protect us, but I do not appreciate that she has taken the moratorium off the table as being politically infeasible. But I'm not going to pick a fight with her. We are allies at heart, yet I believe in the end I could say to her, and to you, what Dr. Steingraber says: "To advocate for mitigation is to sanction gas drilling." She is not just advocating for her four suggestions. She is advocating to "take the handle off the fracking pump" - to stop it, now. You are advocating to let it continue with all the problems she has described, plus many others I have detailed in my PowerPoint on a moratorium. But I will not pick a public fight with you or Jan over this because of the delight that would bring to the gas lobby. I do have a suggestion. I do not know Dr. Steingraber personally, but I do know people who do know her. I would like to suggest that we get you and her into a dialogue about whether your approach of allowing the drilling to go forward is defensible (as I have come to understand as your position) versus her call for a stop to the drilling. May I try to see if I can make that happen?
In Pennsylvania, a moratorium just isn't going to happen. Plain and simple. So what can be done? How can we unite and take positive action? We need to focus on common ground. That is not to suggest that moratorium advocates stop what they are doing. But it is to suggest - request - that those who advocate for other approaches short of that absolute mark not be judged unfairly. I am advocating for prevention of harms through regulation and enforcement and a commitment to science, and prevention of climate harms with controls on the industry and the rapid development of a real energy plan that uses gas as the shortest possible bridge, and protection of public lands. I would be happy to be in contact with Dr. Steingraber.