This page was last updated on September 30, 2015.
Gas-drilling boom mocks promised prosperity; Terrie Baumgardner; Beaver County Times; September 28, 2015.
Ms. Baumgardner used to be an “instructor in communications, arts and sciences at Penn State Beaver.”
Below is a detailed critique of the subject letter.
“Kudos to The Times for publishing the Sept. 14 article ‘Drilling boom means harmful waste spills’ on the front page and above the fold. Given the industry’s plans to increase wells tenfold within the decade, people need to know how the ‘boom’ will mock the prosperity it promises.”
[RWC] The article to which Ms. Baumgardner referred is not on the BCT website, but I suspect this AP story is the one she mentioned.
“At best, it is our children’s well-being that propels us toward good-paying jobs. But what if those jobs increase infant mortality, low-weight births, premature births and child cancer? What if they double the risk of autism, in heavily fracked areas, for newborns of mothers with third-trimester exposure? What if children exposed to frack-truck diesel become more vulnerable to respiratory disease? What if they suffer asthma, nosebleeds, headaches and rashes when air-toxin spikes release carcinogenic VOCs like formaldehyde? What if benzene in those VOCs increases a child’s risk of leukemia, lymphoma or liver cancer 5-20 years down the road?
“Recent scientific studies have documented these what-ifs as real, not hypothetical, afflictions. When they strike our own or our neighbors’ children, it will be too late to ask whether the ends justify the means.
“We can choose to believe the industry-crafted myth that renewable energies are unfeasible. We can dismiss the 96 percent of 400 studies done before 2015 that link shale gas development to potential risks or adverse health outcomes. Or we can act now to end the self-destructive folly of pursuing fossil fuel extraction headlong, at any cost.”
[RWC] I don’t know Ms. Baumgardner’s definition of “unfeasible.” Most “renewable energies” are technically feasible to one degree or another but currently are not economically viable. By “economically viable” I mean the ability to compete in the marketplace without subsidies, tax credits, et cetera.
Though Ms. Baumgardner didn’t mention drinking water, here’s an excerpt from “EPA: Fracking Doesn’t Pose ‘Widespread, Systemic’ Danger to Drinking Water” in Mother Jones, a lefty publication:
“The Environmental Protection Agency today [6/4/2015] released a long-awaited draft report on the impact of fracking on drinking water supplies. The analysis, which drew on peer-reviewed studies as well as state and federal databases, found that activities associated with fracking do ‘have the potential to impact drinking water resources.’ But it concluded that in the United States, these impacts have been few and far between.”
“The report identifies several possible areas of concern … However, the report says, ‘We did not find evidence that these mechanisms have led to widespread, systemic impacts on drinking water resources.’
“The report considered not only the hydraulic fracturing action itself, but all of the water-related steps necessary to drill, from acquiring water to disposing of it.”
What is Ms. Baumgardner’s definition of “pursuing fossil fuel extraction headlong, at any cost?”
Remember, as soon as “renewable energies” get close to commercial viability, they are routinely no longer deemed “green.” We’ve seen this already with some hydro, wind, and solar projects.
Finally, Ms. Baumgardner appears to forget ALL forms of energy production have an environmental footprint, both during actual energy generation and construction of the energy-generation devices and their components.
“The future belongs to our children. The choice belongs to us.”
[RWC] I’ve written before I have no problem with “renewable energies” and I think most of us believe we should exploit all economically and technically viable energy sources. This is the same position I take with all forms of energy production. What I take issue with is pinning our present and future solely on “clean energy” while tying our hands behind our back regarding domestic production of coal, hydro, natural gas, nuclear, and oil-based energy. Instead, we need to let the marketplace do its job without government interference beyond that deemed necessary by limited-government principles.
© 2004-2015 Robert W. Cox, all rights reserved.