Book review: Fracking Pennsylvania: Fracking With Disaster by Walter M. Brasch, Greeley and Stone Publishers, LLC, Carmichael, CA; 2013; 274 pages, $14.95
As an anti-fracking activist, one of the most important things I've learned in this work is how necessary it is for us to be connected and know about each other's work, experiences and information. Walter Brasch has made a valuable contribution to that effort. If I were teaching a course on environmental ethics, Brasch’s books would be on the reading list.
Industry supporters who are derisive toward those of us who raise concerns about the safety of fracking will often repeat lines such as, "Bring your facts to the table. Stop fear-mongering. Base your arguments on scientific facts." Thanks to Brasch, we can do just that. His book is replete with facts, figures, dates and exact quotes (all meticulously footednoted) from industry and government officials on fracking. It is all woven together in a cohesive way that takes the reader through the complexities of issues surrounding shale gas drilling. If you are not alarmed and fearful while reading Brasch's book, you are not sufficiently engaging its content.
After a primer on fracking, its origins, the availability of natural gas, the realities and dangers of underground storage, and the current bans and moratoria in place on fracking, Part One covers the historical, political and economic issues of shale gas drilling. This includes an exhaustive scavenger hunt down the money trails between the industry and politicians at the federal and state levels. Brasch devotes many pages to explaining Act 13, the industry-favoring law that attempts to trump local jurisdictions and put gag orders on the medical and health care field while doing little to protect public health and environmental integrity.
The fact that lawmakers exempted the affluent suburbs in PA from gas drilling demonstrates just how disingenuous they are when it comes to sacrificing rural areas while protecting themselves from the dangers of drilling. Chapter Four, The Economics of Fracking, investigates and debunks the much-touted claims about job-creation and the lure of easy money and weighs them against the costs of forced pooling, losing land rights through eminent domain, and real estate and insurance risks.
Part One concludes with the saga of Riverdale, the mobile home park of 32 families who were forcibly evicted to make room for Aqua America’s water-withdrawal plant to sell water from the Susquehanna River to the fracking industry. As an active participant in that drama, I believe Brasch has done an excellent job of collecting interviews, researching the myriad details surrounding the case, and preserving for history the effort to protect homes, families and the surrounding ecosystem from fracking. While the effort is only a memory, it changed all of us involved in the six-month crisis, and I am grateful Brasch has recorded it so thoroughly in this volume.
Part Two examines health and environmental issues ranging from water and air pollution to effects on agriculture, livestock and wildlife. His coverage of subjects such as pipeline regulation (or lack thereof), flowback treatment, underground injection of wastewater and earthquakes reveal just how dangerous every aspect of shale gas drilling is. Most disconcerting is the fact that by the industry’s own admittance, there are and will be problems, but that the harm to health, community, and the environment are all justifiable and permissible in the cost-risk ratio. Part Two comes to a close by giving an overview of the myriad ways in which people have pushed back against the industry and frack-friendly politicians through grassroots organizations, social networking, films, music and other media.
Given all that Brasch methodically lays out in his book about the dangers of fracking, he comes to a conclusion that is quite modest: that it’s understandable for people to grab for the temporary jobs and royalty checks, but that the government has a responsibility to protect people and their environment instead of doing all it can to pander to the gas industry. One senses a sigh of frustrated resignation as Brasch predicts that after the gas has been tapped, the royalty checks cease, and the jobs fly away, the citizens of Pennsylvania will, once again, be left to clean up the mess, as we have done for decades after the lumber and coal industries extracted all they could from us.
The whole fracking-game reminds me of taking my children to a carnival where the bright lights and games of chance beckon them to spend their allowance to win a fabulous prize. They see a handful of people walking around with big stuffed animals and rationalize that they, too, can enjoy such rewards. But the grown-ups know that it's all a racket. For every "winner," there are hundreds of people who were duped, who spent great sums of money and received no prize. And those who do walk away with the big stuffed bunny get home to find the seams loose and limbs falling off—proof of how cheaply made and worthless the prize truly was.
In the same way, for every "winner" in the frack-racket, there are hundreds who were duped, who received no big pay-off from the industry, whose well-paying job dissolved when the company pulled out and moved, and who found their well poisoned, their health destroyed and their communities ruined. Brasch is one of the grown-ups who is trying to tell us the truth about this racket and reveal the ugly underside of fracking-roulette. Whether anyone will listen, only time will tell.
Visit EcoWatch’s FRACKING page for more related news on this topic.
The Rev. Leah D. Schade is the Pastor at United in Christ Lutheran Church, Lewisburg, PA. She is the founder of Interfaith Sacred Earth Coalition and can be reached via email at email@example.com. She is a PhD Candidate at The Lutheran Theological Seminary at Philadelphia.
- Thom Yorke of Radiohead Releases Song With Greenpeace to Help ... ›
- Patti Smith, Thom Yorke, Flea and More Featured on Just Released ... ›
- Musicians and Activists Unite at 'Pathway to Paris' - EcoWatch ›
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
A national park in Thailand has come up with an innovative way to make sure guests clean up their own trash: mail it back to them.
- Supermarkets in Thailand and Vietnam Swap Plastic Packaging for ... ›
- Malaysia Sends Plastic Waste Back to 13 Wealthy Countries, Says It ... ›
- Thailand Begins the New Year With Plastic Bag Ban - EcoWatch ›
- Coronavirus Worsens Thailand's Plastic Waste Crisis - EcoWatch ›
- Marium, Thailand's Beloved Baby Dugong, Is the Latest Victim of ... ›
By Ilana Cohen
Four years ago, Jacob Abel cast his first presidential vote for Donald Trump. As a young conservative from Concord, North Carolina, the choice felt natural.
But this November, he plans to cast a "protest vote" for a write-in candidate or abstain from casting a ballot for president. A determining factor in his 180-degree turn? Climate change.
Fractures Among Young Climate Conservatives<p>While young conservatives have united around the urgency of climate change, they remain divided over how to bring their concerns to the ballot box. Some embrace right-wing <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/biden-attacks-republican-convention/2020/08/24/434e5b46-e66d-11ea-970a-64c73a1c2392_story.html" target="_blank">attacks</a> painting Biden as a "tool of the left" and find his climate agenda "radical." Others can't find a way to justify voting for Trump, even if it means breaking with their party.</p><p>Patrick Mann from Orange County, California, voted for Trump in 2016. But today, he's leading Aggies for Joe at Texas A&M University and is co-founder of Texas Students for Biden. </p><p>Mann grew up watching wildfires ravage his home state, nearly forcing his family to evacuate in 2017. The GOP is failing to "meet the moment" for climate action, Mann said. He's hoping Biden will deliver on a promise to "<a href="https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/opinion/columnists/caucus/2020/01/06/joe-biden-democrat-president-iowa-caucus-restore-soul-our-nation/2806422001/" target="_blank">restore the soul of our nation</a>." </p><p>Taylor Walker from Pensacola, Florida, is also determined to make her voice heard on climate, including by casting her first-ever vote for president—but not for Biden.</p>
A False Equivalency<p>Young climate conservatives may fear climate denial and delayed climate action, but more than that, they fear the growing political momentum around the Green New Deal, the massive spending it entails and <a href="https://joebiden.com/climate-plan/" target="_blank">Biden's citing of it</a> as a "crucial framing for meeting the climate challenges we face."</p><p>Many don't want to split with their party to support a Democrat whose <a href="https://www.npr.org/2019/09/03/757220130/joe-biden-on-bipartisanship-gun-control-and-regrets-over-inaction-after-a-traged" target="_blank">allegedly bipartisan intentions</a> they doubt. If stymieing what they consider a radical green agenda means re-electing a climate change denying president, so be it. </p><p>"I'm scared of climate change, but I'm also scared of the Green New Deal and what it means for America," said Ben Mutolo, a republicEN spokesperson and junior at SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry. </p><p>Mutolo felt encouraged by former Ohio Governor John Kasich's <a href="https://www.rollcall.com/2020/08/17/kasich-speech-to-democratic-convention-follows-years-of-building-conservative-credentials/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">appearance</a> at the Democratic National Convention, but he still struggles to see himself voting for Biden. Though the candidate paints himself as a <a href="https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2020-08-12/harris-biden-different-generation-similar-political-instinct" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">centrist,</a> Mutolo believes he's "cozying up to the ultra-progressive left." </p><p>Mutolo, who wants to see market-based climate solutions like a carbon tax, feels torn between a candidate whose climate plan relies on taking an "<a href="https://joebiden.com/environmental-justice-plan/#" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">All-of-Government approach</a>," and one with no efforts to reign in global warming at all. <span></span></p><p>Leiserowitz said he appreciated how a conservative might feel Biden's climate plan "doesn't jive with their limited government, free-market approach."</p><p>But he sees a strong distinction between voting for a presidential candidate with a <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/14/us/politics/biden-climate-plan.html" target="_blank">$2 trillion climate plan</a> that includes large renewable energy investments, which have <a href="https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/politics-global-warming-april-2020/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">bipartisan support</a>, and a candidate trying "to take the country in the opposite direction, towards more fossil fuels."</p>
- 7 Republicans Joined Senate Democrats in Vote to Fight Climate ... ›
- Climate Change Acknowledged by Increasing Number of ... ›
The World Health Organization (WHO) announced Monday that 64 high-income nations have joined an effort to distribute a COVID-19 vaccine fairly, prioritizing the most vulnerable citizens, as Science reported. The program is called the COVID-19 Vaccines Global Access Facility, or Covax, and it is a joint effort led by the WHO, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) and Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance.
- Trump Denies CDC Director's 2021 Timeline for Coronavirus Vaccine ›
- CDC Tells States to Prepare for a Vaccine Before November Election ›
- Fauci Warns Pre-Pandemic Normalcy Not Likely Until Late 2021 ... ›
By Gloria Oladipo
In the face of dangerous heat waves this summer, Americans have taken shelter in air conditioned cooling centers. Normally, that would be a wise choice, but during a pandemic, indoor shelters present new risks. The same air conditioning systems that keep us cool recirculate air around us, potentially spreading the coronavirus.