![]() ![]() ![]() Numerous studies though have confirmed evidence of cancer-causing chemicals such as benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene contaminating groundwater in the area of the wells, and populations in the vicinity of wells experiencing disproportionate occurrences of respiratory, nervous, and immune system problems. None are good.įracking operators have avoided disclosure of the chemicals used in their extraction process. As the number has grown, so have the health and environmental effects. The destructive health impact of frackingĪlthough the precise number is difficult to pin down, there are estimated to be more than 1.1 million unconventionally drilled (aka fracked) oil and gas wells in the U.S. And now with renewable solar and wind power producing cheaper electricity than gas, the shoe has been placed on the other foot, and the fracked gas operatives are denying and stalling. But with fracking as the method to extract gas from bedrock, came an avalanche of dangerous, anti-climate consequences. It was the lower cost of natural gas that retired dirty coal from power generation, not lofty stated principles or aspirations of the fossil fuel industry. After all, who among us needed to worry about emissions any longer as there now was a plan on getting us to a carbon-free world. That effectively locked natural gas into the energy system for decades. The emerging dominance of natural gas over coal also had another effect – creation of gas-related infrastructure to include pipelines, power plants, and home heating appliances. Ray Orbach, a former director of the Office of Science at the Department of Energy opined at the time that the economic advantage of natural gas was “a very healthy competition” and “a blessing” since it would drive out coal, the most polluting source of greenhouse gases.Ĭome along Barak Obama, several year later, natural gas was anointed as “the bridge fuel that can power our economy with less of the carbon pollution that causes climate change.” Fracking spread widely across the country mostly unopposed with the holy grail of a “bridge” in reality becoming a defensive wall employed by the fossil fuel industry ever since. The giddiness over natural gas by some was evident. It also was the beginning of the notion of a “transition” fossil fuel. They warned that the cheaper-than-coal fossil fuel natural gas had the potential to push aside investments in developing renewable energy such as solar and wind, as well as carbon capture and storage. In a 2010 study conducted by Massachusetts Institute of Technology economists predicted that the rapidly expanding domestic natural gas market – successful due to the new science of hydraulic fracturing – would produce a source of energy that quickly diminished the use of coal-fired power plants because it was cheaper. gas, pumping about 4 billion cubic feet a day, says on its website as of this writing: “Clean burning natural gas is an important part of our country’s energy mix, and we are proud to be a major producer of natural gas and even prouder to produce it in an environmentally responsible manner.” Whatever the claim, the record on natural gas says otherwise, overwhelmingly.įracking becomes acceptable, even blessed Pittsburgh EQT, the largest supplier of U.S. But such criminal “traditions” carries on to this day. So it is with the statement that the use of natural gas is a bridge to a clean, renewable energy future.Įxxon Mobil, fifty years ago, was the first to obscure and lie about the dangers that fossil fuels pose to the climate. Slick salespeople and evil doers know that if you keep uttering the same lie that eventually enough people will believe it. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |