By Alan Septoff
July 25, 2011
energyNOW!, a news service focusing on energy, has put out a good, balanced piece titled "The Promise and Problems of Shale Gas".
One of the key quotes from Professor Tony Ingraffea indicates why drilling is simply not safe:
"The studies haven't been done to allow a potential landowner who wants to lease his land to answer the following question: am I hurting my family's health or my neighbor's health by doing this? They don't know how to answer that question. They can't answer that question."
July 24, 2011
I drove to the Haynesville Shale last Tuesday, to the Church of the Living God where the EPA was holding a community meeting. The residents in this area on the Texas-Louisiana border are still, after more than two decades, trying to get one simple thing: safe drinking water.
I first met David Hudson in 2006, not long after, "What Lies Beneath," a story by Rusty Middleton about water contamination in DeBerry, Texas from oil field disposal wells appeared in the Texas Observer. Hudson was already a veteran in dealing with contaminated water.
By Lauren Pagel
July 20, 2011
Each year, lawmakers must pass 12 spending bills to fund the government. And each year, some lawmakers use these spending bills to push through anti-environmental provisions that have nothing to do with funding the government. These provisions, called "riders" because of the way they ride along on unrelated must-pass legislation, are usually terrible policies that lawmakers know they wouldn't be able to move through Congress as part of the regular legislative process.
The spending bills that are currently moving through the House of Representatives contain the most anti-environmental riders of any year that I can recall in my decade-long career in DC. If they become law, these policy riders would decimate some of our most basic environmental protections. Clean air, clean water and our most treasured places are under threat.
July 16, 2011
When Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett appointed the Marcellus Shale Advisory Commission in March, the short study time allotted (120 days) and the fait accompli nature of its mission to guide the responsible development of natural gas due to its presumed economic benefits raised alarm bells. Many even wondered whether the final report was already written.
Today this suspicion seemed to be well-founded as the Commission hurriedly voted on a series of recommendations. Because the actual text of these presumably draft proposals were kept from the public and the media, their full content and context were visible only to the players at the Commission table.
By Lauren Pagel
July 15, 2011
This week, the House of Representatives launched at all out attack on communities and the environment. In vote after vote, they chose the profits of businesses over the health of our water and air.
On Tuesday, the spending bill for agencies like the Interior Department and Environmental Protection Agency was voted out of committee. This bill contains nearly too many anti-environmental amendments to count amendments that have nothing to do with appropriating spending for government agencies.
There are three amendments that those of us here at Earthworks are particularly concerned about. One is an amendment that would prohibit the Department of the Interior from withdrawing the lands around the Grand Canyon from mining. The second is an amendment that would stop the EPA from issuing rules to expand the definition of waters of the United States under the Clean Water Act -- a rule that is badly needed to protect ephemeral streams from mining waste and other pollution. And last, but not least, an amendment that would prohibit the EPA from requiring important financial assurances for hardrock mines to ensure that mining companies, not taxpayers, clean up the mess after a mine shuts down.