The best of EcoWatch, right in your inbox. Sign up for our email newsletter!
Fracking Companies Issue Gag Orders and Buy Victims’ Silence
In further attempts to stifle public awareness of the dangers of fracking, energy companies have been issuing gag orders on families who contract with them. The gag orders cover everyone in the family, including children. Drilling company Range Resources offered $750,000 to a Pennsylvania family to move from their home with one catch: the family, and their kids, were not to say a word.
There have been numerous reports of dangerous pollutants contaminating the land and water supply of families in areas near fracking sites. The Hallowich family of Washington County, PA, experienced symptoms of contamination like “burning eyes, sore throats, headaches and earaches.”
Range Resources then paid the family thousands of dollars to relocate and keep quiet about their health issues caused by fracking pollution. Company spokesperson Matt Pitzarella said the family left because “they had an unusual amount of activity around them.”
Once they’ve paid off the victims, the fracking operation is protected and the families are bound to the company, thus, sweeping any evidence of fracking’s dangers under the rug. The practice has proved helpful for the fracking companies in that when giving testimony to Congress, there is no pushback from those who have witnessed and experienced fracking pollution first hand.
“These gag orders are the reason [drillers] can give testimony to Congress and say there are no documented cases of contamination,” said Earthworks organizer Sharon Wilson.
Companies and lawmakers friendly to the companies have even gone so far as to gag doctors from expressing their professional concerns about dangerous fracking chemicals. Last year, a law passed in Pennsylvania that allows doctors to access the listing of the chemicals used in fracking. However, the doctors are prohibited from telling their patients about it.
Despite proof that fracking is harmful, like the documentaries Gasland and Gasland 2, which focus on the hazards of the fracking industry, there is still a lack of regulation against the fracking companies. Whenever the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency demands companies to submit data about the chemicals used in the drilling process, the companies have the freedom to blow off the request.
By cutting off the flow of information, fracking companies still possess total control of exposure of their actions, and exercise them with impunity. Once there is a free flow of information about the harm caused by fracking, officials can, and should, institute stricter regulations.
Visit EcoWatch’s FRACKING page for more related news on this topic.
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
georgeclerk / E+ / Getty Images
By Jennifer Molidor
One million species are at risk of extinction from human activity, warns a recent study by scientists with the United Nations. We need to cut greenhouse gas pollution across all sectors to avoid catastrophic climate change — and we need to do it fast, said the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
This research should serve as a rallying cry for polluting industries to make major changes now. Yet the agriculture industry continues to lag behind.
"The Ministry of Environment, Natural Resources Conservation and Tourism wishes to inform the public that following extensive consultations with all stakeholders, the Government of Botswana has taken a decision to lift the hunting suspension," the government announced in a press release shared on social media.
Company Safety Data Sheets on New Chemicals Frequently Lack the Worker Protections EPA Claims They Include
By Richard Denison
Readers of this blog know how concerned EDF is over the Trump EPA's approval of many dozens of new chemicals based on its mere "expectation" that workers across supply chains will always employ personal protective equipment (PPE) just because it is recommended in the manufacturer's non-binding safety data sheet (SDS).
By Grant Smith
From 2009 to 2012, Gregory Jaczko was chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which approves nuclear power plant designs and sets safety standards for plants. But he now says that nuclear power is too dangerous and expensive — and not part of the answer to the climate crisis.
By Brett Walton
When Greg Wetherbee sat in front of the microscope recently, he was looking for fragments of metals or coal, particles that might indicate the source of airborne nitrogen pollution in Rocky Mountain National Park. What caught his eye, though, were the plastics.
In a big victory for animals, Prada has announced that it's ending its use of fur! It joins Coach, Jean Paul Gaultier, Giorgio Armani, Versace, Ralph Lauren, Vivienne Westwood, Michael Kors, Donna Karan and many others PETA has pushed toward a ban.
This is a victory more than a decade in the making. PETA and our international affiliates have crashed Prada's catwalks with anti-fur signs, held eye-catching demonstrations all around the world, and sent the company loads of information about the fur industry. In 2018, actor and animal rights advocate Pamela Anderson sent a letter on PETA's behalf urging Miuccia Prada to commit to leaving fur out of all future collections, and the iconic designer has finally listened.
If people in three European countries want to fight the climate crisis, they need to chill out more.
"The rapid pace of labour-saving technology brings into focus the possibility of a shorter working week for all, if deployed properly," Autonomy Director Will Stronge said, The Guardian reported. "However, while automation shows that less work is technically possible, the urgent pressures on the environment and on our available carbon budget show that reducing the working week is in fact necessary."
The report found that if the economies of Germany, Sweden and the UK maintain their current levels of carbon intensity and productivity, they would need to switch to a six, 12 and nine hour work week respectively if they wanted keep the rise in global temperatures to the below two degrees Celsius promised by the Paris agreement, The Independent reported.
The study based its conclusions on data from the UN and the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) on greenhouse gas emissions per industry in all three countries.
The report comes as the group Momentum called on the UK's Labour Party to endorse a four-day work week.
"We welcome this attempt by Autonomy to grapple with the very real changes society will need to make in order to live within the limits of the planet," Emma Williams of the Four Day Week campaign said in a statement reported by The Independent. "In addition to improved well-being, enhanced gender equality and increased productivity, addressing climate change is another compelling reason we should all be working less."
Supporters of the idea linked it to calls in the U.S. and Europe for a Green New Deal that would decarbonize the economy while promoting equality and well-being.
"This new paper from Autonomy is a thought experiment that should give policymakers, activists and campaigners more ballast to make the case that a Green New Deal is absolutely necessary," Common Wealth think tank Director Mat Lawrence told The Independent. "The link between working time and GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions has been proved by a number of studies. Using OECD data and relating it to our carbon budget, Autonomy have taken the step to show what that link means in terms of our working weeks."
Stronge also linked his report to calls for a Green New Deal.
"Becoming a green, sustainable society will require a number of strategies – a shorter working week being just one of them," he said, according to The Guardian. "This paper and the other nascent research in the field should give us plenty of food for thought when we consider how urgent a Green New Deal is and what it should look like."
- Reduced Work Hours as a Means of Slowing Climate Change ›
- How working less could solve all our problems. Really. | ›
- Needed: A shorter work week – People's World ›