Archive for climate crisis

We're "throwing water down oil wells to get money now." "It's time to get off these carbon drugs."

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

don't frack with our water

One of my previous posts on hydraulic fracturing: Fracking linked to methane risk: “When methane concentrations are that high, water can bubble like champagne.”

Regular readers know that fracking (which is when water mixed with sand and chemicals is injected deep underground at high pressure to shatter rock formations to unlock oil and gas trapped inside) is a topic I write about regularly (scroll). I dare corporate "people," my friend, to take a big gulp of tap water in the form of chemically induced flames that spew from faucets where fracking is prevalent, as is depicted in the excellent film Gasland.

That said, here are today's Los Angeles Times letters to the editor, because our voices matter:

Re "Coalition asks Brown to halt fracking in California," Aug. 29

Gov. Jerry Brown implies that California needs the money fracking would provide as much as it needs environmental protection.

What California depends on is water. We all need water, and each fracking well consumes millions of gallons of that precious stuff, never to be reclaimed. You can't purify the chemicals out or flush out the aquifer if an earthquake cracks a shaft and the chemical mixture drains into the groundwater.

We are deep into drought. The water California has relied on will be even more fought over. Throwing it down oil wells to get money now ignores how much we will have to spend to live with the consequences.

Suvan Geer

Santa Ana

***

Most Californians agree that getting fracking right is of far greater value than getting it fast. Haste makes waste of several sorts — of time, money and the health of workers and "downstreamers" such as small towns whose sewage treatment plants are incapable of dealing with fracking fluid (and what's in that stuff anyway?).

My personal take on fracking and other major extraction efforts is that in light of the fact that fossil fuel reserves are already several times what the planet can stand to burn, it's time to get off these carbon drugs.

Robert Siebert

Orange

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

EPA report: Methane, arsenic from fracking are contaminating wells in Pa.

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

don't frack with our water

This was my most recent post on hydraulic fracturing: Fracking linked to methane risk: “When methane concentrations are that high, water can bubble like champagne.”

Regular readers know that fracking (which is when water mixed with sand and chemicals is injected deep underground at high pressure to shatter rock formations to unlock oil and gas trapped inside) is a topic I write about regularly (scroll). If corporations are people, my friend, let them guzzle tap water in the form of chemically induced flames that spew from faucets where fracking is prevalent, as is depicted in the excellent film Gasland.

Now the EPA is suggesting that the procedure resulted in the contamination of well water in Dimock, Pennsylvania.

Via the Los Angeles Times:

In an internal EPA PowerPoint presentation obtained by the Tribune/Los Angeles Times Washington Bureau, staff members warned their superiors that several wells had been contaminated with methane and substances such as manganese and arsenic, most likely because of local natural gas production.

The presentation, based on data collected over 4 1/2 years at 11 wells around Dimock, concluded that "methane and other gases released during drilling (including air from the drilling) apparently cause significant damage to the water quality." The presentation also concluded that "methane is at significantly higher concentrations in the aquifers after gas drilling and perhaps as a result of fracking [hydraulic fracturing] and other gas well work." [...]

"We don't know what's going on, but certainly the fact that there's been such a distinct withdrawal from three high-profile cases raises questions about whether the EPA is caving to pressure from industry or antagonistic members of Congress," said Kate Sinding of the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group.

And of course, all that pressure being exerted on the EPA by the gas industry is about profit, not the health and welfare of the American people.

I wonder how many frackers call themselves "pro-life"... But who cares about life outside the womb and how climate change and pollution affect living, breathing human beings when you can make a lot of money by using methods that can eventually kill them?

right to life my ass pro life

I just stumbled across this from SFGate:

[S]ome experts say arrogance, a lack of transparency and poor communication on the part of the drilling industry have helped fuel public anger over the process of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking. [...]

"Those people moved into our valley like a conquering army," said Thomas Thompson, who complained that the heavy equipment that accompanied drilling in Rifle, Colo., created endless dust storms that caused health problems for him and his wife.

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

Fracking linked to methane risk: "When methane concentrations are that high, water can bubble like champagne."

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

fracking cartoon Clay BennettVia Clay Bennett

Regular readers know that fracking (which is when water mixed with sand and chemicals is injected deep underground at high pressure to shatter rock formations to unlock oil and gas trapped inside) is a topic I write about regularly (scroll). If corporations are people, my friend, let them guzzle tap water in the form of chemically induced flames that spew from faucets where fracking is prevalent, as is depicted in the excellent film Gasland.

That said, President Obama just gave his speech on what he can do to counter climate change without having to rely on our good old not-foresighted deniers in Congress. By the way, Cable News Virtually Ignored Obama’s Major Climate Speech:

All of the three major news networks spent mere minutes on the speech — which ran in total 49 minutes.

MSNBC: 41 seconds

FOX News: 4 minutes and 37 seconds

CNN: 8 minutes and 5 seconds

The Weather Channel: 49 minutes

I actually tweeted about the conspicuous lack of coverage during the speech itself:

"@chrislhayes: This is an incredibly thorough, serious, sophisticated speech.| Thank you for noticing, Chris. Where's everyone else?"

The president stressed taking advantage of our plentiful supply of natural gas, adding that (paraphrased in my livetweet) "we'll make drilling safer, cleaner, less methane." I felt compelled to add, "How about that fracking, Pres. O?" That last part from the president about the very real risks of methane pollution was hugely important and worthy of note, as this article in the Los Angeles Times points out:

A study published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that drinking-water wells in northeastern Pennsylvania within a kilometer of high-volume hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, showed methane concentrations six times greater, on average, than in wells farther away. [...]

The study released Monday expands a project, published by Duke researchers two years ago, that the oil and gas industry criticized for testing too few wells, and for failing to account for natural sources of methane in local well water. This time, the scientists tested 141 wells, up from 60. [...]

The study found that at the 59 homes within a kilometer of a natural gas well, methane levels were on average much higher than those farther away.

Of the 59 homes, a dozen had water wells with methane concentrations greater than 28 milligrams per liter of water, which the Interior Department has identified as the threshold for immediate remediation of a well.

“When the methane concentrations are that high, the water can bubble like champagne,” [the study’s lead author, Robert B. Jackson, professor of environmental sciences at Duke University] said.

Cheers!

toasting glasses

fracking faucet flames

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

Cartoonaroony-- A toast: "To fracking!"

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

frack off smaller

Clay Bennett is one of my all-time favorite editorial cartoonists. He says so much with so few, if any, words, and his drawing style is fantastic. I say this as a cartoonist myself, a discerning one who greatly appreciates Paddy's daily posts of so many excellent artists.

He nailed it in this image that appeared in my L.A. Times on fracking, a topic I write about regularly (scroll). If corporations are people, my friend, let them guzzle tap water in the form of chemically induced flames that spew from faucets where fracking is prevalent, as is depicted in the excellent film Gasland.

Cheers:

fracking cartoon Clay Bennett

As one commenter at the Times Free Press noted:

patriot1 said...

We haul bottled water from our municipal water supplies around the country in trucks getting 6 mpg of diesel at cost of about $4 per gallon. More fracking needed for more fuel.

A reminder:

Fracking — “hydraulic fracturing,” technically speaking — involves drilling a pipe horizontally into an underground oil- or natural gas-bearing formation and pumping a slurry into the formation at high pressure to liberate the hydrocarbons trapped within.

Let’s get the truth about fracking.

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

New Mexico county first in US to ban fracking to safeguard water: "I don't want to destroy our water. You can't drink oil."

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

don't frack with our water

It's that time again, time to talk about about fracking (scroll). A reminder:

Fracking — “hydraulic fracturing,” technically speaking — involves drilling a pipe horizontally into an underground oil- or natural gas-bearing formation and pumping a slurry into the formation at high pressure to liberate the hydrocarbons trapped within.

Frackers worry that if local residents and authorities were better informed, they’d be able to more effectively push back. They continue to use secrecy by way of withholding of information as their weapon of choice. Ignorance is their friend, but it shouldn't be ours. Please educate yourselves about the repercussions of this toxic practice.

New Mexico did. Mora County, a poor, conservative ranching region of "energy-rich" New Mexico, became the first county in the nation to pass an ordinance banning fracking due the effect it has on water quantity and quality.

New Mexicans can feel the earth's temperature rising as we speak as they do their best to ignore the thought of flames pouring out of their faucets.

One resident, Roger Alcon, has "lived off the land for five generations" and would like to continue doing just that.

Via the L.A. Times:

"I don't want to destroy our water," Alcon said. "You can't drink oil."

In embracing the ban, landowners turned their back on potentially lucrative royalty payments from drilling on their property and joined in a groundswell of civic opposition to fracking that is rolling west from Ohio, New York and Pennsylvania in the gas-rich Marcellus shale formation. [...]

Among the leading concerns of opponents is the absence of any federal law requiring companies to fully identify the chemicals in their fracking fluids. Such formulas are considered by the industry to be a trade secret. Community-based anti-fracking campaigns — citing public health issues — call for complete disclosure of injection fluids.

Many of us have heard about the "trade secret" aspect of this story before, but are you aware of the assumptions by Big Gas and Oil about us, that we're too stupid to know what they're up to? Especially those annoying old people. And simpleminded country bumpkins. And those icky foreigners who come to our country but don't speak our language:

Sandra Alcon said her neighbors don't care about mineral rights or oil money. They are angry about the way energy companies' "land men" treated them. Residents here are seen as easy marks for hustlers offering little compensation for oil and water rights, she said.

"They know we have a lot of elderly and rural people; some don't speak English," she said. "They don't know that some of us went to college and some of us have the Internet.

"I may look stupid, but I'm not. I know what they are doing."

No, actually, the frackers are the ones who look stupid, stubborn, greedy, and incapable of seeing past their wallets. Keep up the good work, New Mexico. You know exactly what they're doing and what to do in return.

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

VIDEO: Obama's Organizing for Action launches campaign to shame climate sceptics in Congress

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

climate change Congress

organizingforaction (the group that came together to support President Obama's political agenda post-election):

The science on climate change is clear, but too many members of Congress are in complete denial. It's time to call them out: http://OFA.BO/1BggUG

Message from Organizing for Action, to Congress: You can't be that ignorant. No, seriously. Shame on you.

No matter what part of climate change the ignorami in Congress fail grasp, or why, how can they object to cleaning up the air we breathe and the water we drink? I'm betting they could even make a profit doing that, which is really all they care about anyway, no matter who they hurt, deprive, or sicken in the process.

Via The Guardian:

The video mainly features Republican members of the House of Representatives who are notorious for denying the existence of climate change, or positing bizarre notions about its causes.

However, it also includes some national figures such as the Florida senator Marc Rubio and House speaker John Boehner, whose views on climate are not that broadly known.

climate change hoax voteclimate change orgs who deny zeroH/t: Taegan

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

Finally! A sweet way to convince climate change deniers to change their minds: Chocolate.

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

chocolate easter egg

For years we here at The Political Carnival have been all over climate change deniers, the Drill-Baby-Drillers, and their focus on what goes into their wallets and from whom. We've pounded the disaster-in-waiting tar sands pipeline, and we've blasted BP.

None of that matters, though, because the oil-addicted remain unconvinced. However, there may finally be a way to change their minds: Via their collective sweet tooth.

From the Los Angeles Times:

Chocolate is a huge business, pulling in $90 billion in global sales annually, $19 billion of it in the U.S., according to market research company Mintel Group Ltd. Price increases and product innovation helped the industry grow 16% from 2007 through 2012, the firm found.

But scientists predict a looming cocoa bean shortage, intensified by climate change and botanical disease.

The International Cocoa Organization said that global production in the last growing year fell 6.1%, and it forecasts a 1.8% slide this year. That would probably cause a cocoa shortfall of 45,000 metric tons in the current marketing year ending Sept. 30, the group said.

Tighter supplies as well as rising sugar and manufacturing costs are adding to the price of truffles and bonbons.

Will the fossil fuel supporters finally see that they must alter their polluting ways once they realize that our yummy, scrumptious, to-die-for, decadent chocolate treats are in danger because of climate change?

Let's hope these stubborn doubters are not just coo-coo, but also coo-coo for Cocoa Puffs.

bonbon appetit

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare