English County Puts Kibosh on Fracking - What Are WE in the U.S. Doing About It?

Anti-Fracking protestors in Preston, England, after the local government rejected fracking applications from Caudrilla Resources

What a great and noble thing it is to have control of whether despoliation of one's environment can occur via the use of local control of fracking! We almost had it here in Colo. back in 2014 except that Jared Polis (who tendered two different referenda on it) punked out at the last minute - no doubt coerced by the oil and gas and lobby. As well as kowtowing to empty promises by Gov. John Hickenlooper, aka "Hick", who once drank a large glass full of fracked water to try and show it was harmless. (Rumors later circulated that he had diarrhea for three days after, but we can't verify this.)

We know New York at least got the message and banned fracking last year, but most state government haven't given they're so in control by outside interest e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.tw/2015/05/fracking-state-governments-determined.html

Now, we also know an English county government on Monday rejected application from Caudrilla Resources for the first onshore hydraulic fracturing in Western Europe since 2011, according to a Wall Street Journal report ('Fracking Suffers Setback In England', p. B3, June 30).  Thus, as the piece observed, "the industry suffered another blow to develop a shale gas industry outside of the U.S."

Well, let it suffer! We don't want or need no stinkin' fracked air, soil and water!

And as for the bollocks pumped out by the industry's PR tanks, i.e. that it "provides energy independence" do not believe that codswallop for one second! All it is doing, as Jim Hightower also observed in his latest column, is being shipped outside the U.S., e.g.

"In shale fields across the country, you'll see fracking rigs festooned with Old Glory, and they even paint some of their rigs red, white and blue. This ostentatious, patriotic pose is part and parcel of the industry's cynical public-relations campaign to convince you and me that its assault on our health, water, air and economic future should be mindlessly saluted, rather than questioned.

ENERGY INDEPENDENCE! is their deafening cry — this shale gas boom, they exclaim, most certainly will free America from dependence on foreign producers.

"Oh say can you see [through the frackers' big lie?]"

He goes on to pointedly note:

"Far from independence, we're going to get the pollution and other problems, but foreigners will get the energy, for the gas extracted from our fractured land is destined for the export market.

How do we know that? First, because the industry and its government enablers admit it in their internal communications. But, secondly, guess who's paying for the fracking of America?"

Bloomberg News,  indeed, reports that China has pumped over $5 billion into the U.S. drilling "boom" — not only so it can export the energy back to their people, but especially so the Chinese can "redeploy the best U.S. practices and technologies" back to China. Japan has done the same and India has plowed in $3.5 billion to grab our fracked oil and gas.

 Other Asian nations will reap the benefits of this cheap, degraded energy for their own development - once the TPP is finally passed (if it is). Then every signee nation from Vietnam to the Philippines will be able to demand untold fracked shale oil from us and we shall have to comply.  So we are being asked - nay expected- to allow our own nations in the West to be fucked over as far as water, air quality and depredation of the environment - to provide cheap energy to others!

And the insidious effects on resources - especially water - are such that we MUST reject the efforts to blind us to what this dastardly methodology is doing.

The latest news, according to a comprehensive new analysis from the U.S. Geological Survey: fracking is using up much MORE water than originally assumed -  as much as 9.6 million gallons per well.  To give you some point of comparison, an Olympic-sized swimming pool, for comparison, hold just about 660,000 gallons. Thus one single frack well can consume more than 14. 5 Olympc -sized swimming pools.

On average, the study calculated that gas wells are using 5.1 million gallons of water each. Not only is that a lot, it’s more than 28 times the amount of water they were using just 15 years ago.  The greatest atrocity? Many of those operations, as Climate Central notes, are located in regions that recently saw severe droughts — Texas, the Rocky Mountains, the Great Plains – and which can expect to confront even more water shortages as global warming progresses:

It's estimated that fracking now consumes up to 30 percent more ground water than previously believed. At this rate, and with new water data showing an ever diminishing resource base, there won't be any left for future generations.  Kids today who grow up in water-ravaged drought states - or even in many other places- will have to rely on toilet to tap water, or else.... go without.

In the case of the UK vote, while supporters inflated the "economic benefits"  - most sane people weren't biting, noting the host of toxic chemicals used during fracking, most of which got into the ground water. In their rational reckoning, there was no issue of dubious "cost benefit" calculations, there simply was too much cost and very little benefit to them - the cost including devastating health issues and devaluation of property. Because NO one wants to buy a home in a frack area. So the elites can tout this shit all they want, but they can afford to live in their little rich enclaves which won't tolerate it!

Meanwhile, in the UK Scotland has also banned fracking and Wales is considering a similar measure. It is also banned in France and on hold in Germany where my friend Reinhardt has vowed he will fight "tooth and nail" to keep it out since he's seen what it's done here in the U.S.  He agreed that letting it get started would be almost as bad as "allowing the Nazis to regain control of the country."

Indeed, and this is largely why the frack craze - while it's unleashed an oil and gas boom in the U.S. - has proven politically toxic in the more advanced European nations whose citizens take care not to elect frack -crazy political whores. Instead,  blocking it at every turn because of its calamitous health and environmental damage.

We need to start mounting unabated pressure on our political cretins....errrr....creatures...now, to halt this crap. Our future and our kids future depends upon it!

Earth Day Alert: The Biggest Problem Remains Over-Population

Today, Earth Day, behooves all of us to give serious consideration to alleviating the horrific problems that plague our world, and threaten to make it uninhabitable in a very short term. At the root of all the problems, including fouled water, polluted air and soil, melting glaciers, severe crowding - not to mention mass panic migrations (such as claimed over 850 lives this week) is overpopulation..

Already multiple lines of research are questioning the UN estimates that project a global population of 10.9 billion by 2100. If, however, women - mainly in the poorest nations and without access to contraceptives, have even 0.5 more offspring each  (than projected)  that 2100 estimate could turn into 12.3 billion or even 15.8 billion. The latter pointing to a certain 'Soylent Green' world. Meanwhile, Adrian Rafferty of the University of Washington, publishing in a recent issue of Science, computed there's an 80 percent probability that world population - now 7.3 billion - will increase to between 9.6 billion and 12.3 billion by 2100.  I personally don't buy into that, firmly convinced - as Isaac Asimov once pointed out in a Barbados lecture, e.g.

Isaac Asimov makes a crucial point  concerning overpopulation and carrying capacity at his Queen's Park Lecture in Barbados, on Feb. 6, 1976. He argued  that we either control our numbers ourselves, or nature will do it for us.

That assorted life-destroying forms of blowback (new diseases, mass starvation, antibiotic failure, disasters, wars) will limit that to the carrying capacity by that date. So we may well see only 3 or at most 4 billion inhabiting Earth by then. As Asimov bluntly put it:

"We can either control our numbers, or.....let nature increase the human death rate"

A serious marker is the fact we humans are currently consuming the equivalent resources of 1.5 Earths per year, which is clearly unsustainable. In fact, it is now approaching 1.6 Earths because of the added humans - more than eighty million per year (1 million added every 4.5 days according to Alan Weisman).   The excellent BBC documentary last year on the Earth's population (hosted by Richard Attenborough) entitled: 'How Many People Can Earth Hold?' also provided much needed realistic insights on sustainability and the planet's bio-support capacity.

Attenborough didn't pull punches or mince words, noting that every current major societal, environmental problem:  from clogged highways, to overflowing hospital ERs to crowded schools, as well as scarcity of commodities (reflected in their much increased prices) to fouling of our water and atmosphere and the greenhouse effect, can be laid at the feet of too many people on this planet - each needing food, air, water and energy from the time it's born.  The more people generated the more CO2 produced as a result of their gobbling resources and assorted carbon footprints. While the latter are greatest in the West, because our societies are based on consumption, the lesser footprints also matter in the sense that wars, tribal unrest and religious wars can result in millions fleeing their home nations and disrupting the balance of life in those countries fled to.

Of all the resources, the most critical is water because no one can live without it for very long. Even now, 1 billion people live in water-stressed conditions, meaning that renewable water supplies drop below 1,700 cubic meters per capita. One notable ‘State of the World’ report (2000, pp. 46-47), warned that the ever increasing water deficits will likely spark “water wars” by 2025. As one Mexican water-truck driver observes on the BBC special (while making his rounds in Mexico City): "Not very long from now, we will see wars over water. It will be more important than oil. Even now, we can see how little people think of it and how much they waste it". Indeed!

Attenborough reinforces this observation by noting the water intensity of the various beverages, foods we produce. For example, merely to produce one cup of coffee requires the consumption of 120 liters of water. To get a single can of beer requires 150 liters, and to obtain that 'Big Mac' or quarter pounder takes some 8,000 liters.

And we won't even get into fracking for oil shale, given that each well fracked requires up to 5 million gallons of freshwater which is then despoiled for further use after being re-evacuated as "brine"..If 10 million frack wells are projected world wide by 2020 (according to T. Boone Pickens) then you can do the math and figure out that means 4  million gallons (on average)  x 10 million wells = 40 TRILLION gallons of water lost for human consumption - in a world already running dry from climate change.

Obviously, there is a link between fracking and population since the more people there are the more energy is needed to support them. Whether driving their cars, or using planes for trans-national business, or even their computers. (And we won't even go into how much electronic waste is generated each year by sheer obsolescence.)

There is also the issue of the carrying capacity, or rather the bio-support capacity of the planet. If one divides the total output of bio-productivity (determined in terms of food crops generated per hectare, water volume per hectare, etc.) and divides that by the population, one can get some idea. One expert (seen on the BBC documentary) has calculated that based on his models - if we wanted a planet with equally shared bio-productive output - each human would get TWO hectares. If we inhabited such a world, then the planet might support 15 billion people. One could get this to eighteen billion if one reduced the hectare average to 0.5 per person, or about that for each Rwandan.

The reality is that the bio-productive output is not equal, and using a map of the world, Attenborough showed the divergences, with the UK consuming 5.5 hectares per person, and the USA, 9.5 hectares. Thus, the average USA person is consuming more than four times that which is defined as a fair, equal apportioning of resources across all the numbers on the planet. According to Attenborough's expert, by this reckoning of such unequal apportioning of output, the planet can only hold 1.5 billion people.

Population Pollyannas might argue, 'Well, no problem, just get everyone to reduce to Rwandan hectare consumption level'.  Right, and if you can show me any practical way that would be politically implemented I have a patch of beach in Barbados for you - for free!

There are, of course, more draconian solutions that have been used in over-populated nations, such as India and China. In the former, forced sterilization saw nearly 8 million males sterilized during Indira Gandhi's reign but that had to be stopped on account of massive public outcry. Then China, trying to escape from its famine-ravaged past,  enacted "one child only" laws with serious sanctions. While people may seethe at such a law, they enabled China to achieve economic superpower status within a generation and now compete directly with the U.S. As Attenborough notes, if that law hadn't been enacted China would now have 400 million additional people and still be at the mercy of famine from too few grains, foods or ability to import them. Nor would it have the military and civilian infrastructure it displays today - including for alternative energy.

The U.S. doesn't need such draconian methods-  yet-   only minor tweaks to its tax code. Taking away the child tax credit, or having a sliding scale of increased taxes when people have more than 2 children, while giving credits when they adopt more kids in need is one possibility. The problem is, the U.S. is already overpopulated in terms of the resources it can deliver for 315 million people.

How much do you know about population-related issues? Test yourself with this quiz:

http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/quiz/2013/nov/07/development-data-population-quiz-hans-rosling

Increasing Earthquakes in Oklahoma Now Tied To Frack Wells

As a matter of geological history, before 2008 Oklahoma had only one or two Richter scale 3 earthquakes each year. But last year hundreds were counted, and though it was only hinted at in the mainstream media, many of us suspected the increasing frequency of fracking -especially via frack disposal wells. As one geophysicist  (Katie Keranen) at Cornell University put it: "We've never seen anything like this before."

Here's a brief recap of the frack process: To get oil and gas out of the ground, drilling engineers have to pump out water - as well as inject it. (As they do here in Colo., consuming 4 million gallons of water with each well injection - one of the reasons we're running low on water.)  While the injected water is fresh - usually taken from what would normally have gone to crops - the effluent, pumped out liquid is more like brine.  This stuff is toxic to the environment so the frack companies get rid of it by injecting it into rocks via what are called "disposal wells".

While some geoscientists have suggested that such wastewater dumping could set off quakes, including the ones in OK as well as TX, there was one problem: most wells were too far away from the actual site of earthquakes. In the case of the Sooner state, most wells - especially disposal - were too distant from what has been called the "Jones swarm" of quakes. Thus people, especially oil and gas outfits, declared the wells were too distant to cause the quakes.

But give Keranen credit, she didn't buy into the simplistic argument and decided to test her hypothesis: that distant disposal wells could cause quakes - using a computer model. Her team at Cornell devised a model to estimate how far wastewater travels underground, and the pressure created around 89 wells. (Too much pressure would be able to stress the faults running throughout the Earth's crust in a frack region like OK.)

The Cornell team analyzed ground movement to pinpoint the origin of thousands of the Jones' swarm earthquakes occurring from 2010 to 2013. The computer simulation found that the magnitude of the pressures spreading from the wells to the quake origin sites were large enough to trigger the earthquakes.

Incredibly, the primary culprits were four high volume disposal wells. This alone, Keranen believes, could help the oil and gas industry pinpoint problem wells and maybe avoid so many quakes in the future.  But is she realistic? I mean, even the 5.6 quake that jolted the state in 2011 (which scientists later linked to wastewater injections) drew barely a peep and certainly didn't prompt new regulations.

As here in Colorado, when the fossil fuel industry has its tentacles extended into state capitols,  there is little chance of containing the excesses of fracking - whether that affects soil, air, water quality or (as in the case of OK) earthquakes spawned by disposal wells.

How to test Keranen's hypothesis in the real world? Easy! Turn off the frickin' frack wells and see if the earthquakes stop! If they don't then we will know her computer simulation missed something.

Life Changes At The Cusp Of The Runaway Greenhouse

Let us recognize that life at the cusp of the runaway greenhouse will not be "sweet bread" to use Bajan parlance. For those alive in 2035 and going forward, they will need every bit of resourcefulness and mettle to cope with the tidal wave of changes to descend on them. In this post I want to examine some of them with the underlying subtext: Are  we remotely ready to deal with them?

As shown in the accompanying graphic, some of the most profound changes will occur in sea level states such as Florida as projected sea level rise affects over 3 million in that state alone, as well as more than 560 million worldwide. Already Miami experiences severe flooding with heavy rains and pumps are often needed to eliminate the water. But this is batting on a 'losing wicket' that will only postpone the inevitable.

Island states like Barbados and Kiribati are particularly affected. A recent visit to Barbados (last May) reminded us of the extent to which the island is at risk of losing its precious beaches. With each passing year more coastal land is reclaimed due to the inexorably rising sea and now- unlike thirty years ago - you won't find one single climate change skeptic. As for Kiribati, see e.g.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/22/kiribati-president-buying-land_n_5860064.html

Unaddressed are also the following effects which will creep into the lives of those living near the first "year of no seasons" - the first signal of the imminent runaway:

- Hotter and hotter night time temperatures

Up until relatively recently, the bane of heat waves has been broken by the fact they usually don't last overly long, e.g. a week or ten days, and when they are finished night time temperatures get significantly cooler than day time  -providing needed relief. By the cusp of the runaway all that will change. Not only will heat waves be prolonged (lasting 2-3 months or longer) but will be severe, with highs in the 100-110F range. These conditions will be life - threatening for millions especially as the night time temperatures will scarcely be much lower.

Already, night time minimums have been rising more rapidly than daytime highs, even as the length of summer (and spring) stretches beyond their astronomical definitions.  The natural response in developed nations will be to amp up the a/c but this will clearly lead to more blackouts as power grids are strained beyond their capacity.

Extended heat waves, encroaching into what was spring and "winter" will also force school systems to install more air conditioning, at great expense. Will public school systems already scratching for money be able to afford it? They had better, or else they will have to cut the school year dramatically. (Or let kids mostly self-educate on their home computers, assuming electricity is available.)

- Water limits will see mass rationing for most communities

By which I mean water access, if at available at all, will be limited to specific intervals of the day. A major reason is that our water infrastructure was created for a 20th century climate. Indeed, many water systems originated in the 19th century especially in major cities like New York, Chicago. These systems will not be able to withstand the withering heat from prolonged heat waves and so an already dire water situation will become manifestly worse. In western states, water may not be available at all, as it's being delimited by prolonged drought but also by the fracking craze.  Some estimates indicate Colorado, for example, may run out of potable fresh water by the middle of the next decade if the fracking insanity isn't halted.

All this implies that if there is water, it will become immensely costly. We are talking of rates as high as $300 a month or more just for recycled toilet water. How will people, especially the poorest, be able to afford that if they can barely afford food now? It is clear any government at the time may have to provide water stamps as well as food stamps.

True, the planned expansion of the Gross Reservoir near Denver  makes sense. But even that will only provide a limited solution as the state's population continues to grow, and the frackers show no signs of relenting in their yearly plunder of hundreds of millions of gallons for frack wells.

- Fire potential will soar nationwide, worldwide:

While raging fires in the West have become commonplace, e.g.


They will also be common throughout the nation at the cusp of the runaway greenhouse. The reasons for the coming "fire age" were clearly explained in a  Washington Post   article three years ago:

"Warmer weather, earlier snowmelt, drought and beetle infestations facilitated by warmer climates are all contributing to the rising number of fires linked to climate change. Across large swaths of the United States and Canada, bark beetles have killed many mature trees, making forests more flammable. And tropical rain forests that were not susceptible to forest fires in the past are likely to become drier as temperatures rise, growing more vulnerable."

This means that every state will need to have provisions ready for massive fire -fighting, and that means budgets to support it as much (in fact more) than they now support snow removal. (By the first estimated 'year of no seasons', 2040 (according to David Suzuki) there will, of course, be no more snow so all budgets will have to redirect to fire fighting.


- Heat Compromise of General Infrastructure :

While the effect on water delivery systems will be bad enough, the immense heat projected by 2035-37 will also wreak havoc on roads, bridges and even airports. Current road materials exhibit a limited range of heat tolerance and road buckling occurs with sustained temperatures above 90F - exactly the conditions that will emerge at the cusp of the runaway greenhouse.

Bridges are especially vulnerable to high temperatures, which stress bridge integrity. Already, thanks to lack of maintenance, nearly 70 percent of U.S. bridges are compromised in some way and it is these bridges most likely to be affected first as the temperatures ramp up. Like it or not, taxes may  have to be increased exponentially to pay for all this. (The American Society of Civil Engineers estimates a cost of $1.6 trillion just to achieve a moderate state of maintenance. Redesign for the "heat era" may require 2 or 3 times that.)

Airports will also be affected. DIA or Denver International Airport has the world's longest runway, but may need to extend it even further. The much higher temperatures at the cusp will make it much harder to attain lift (from the Bernoulli effect).  Thus, much warmer air will be less dense (when a gas is heated it expands so its density or mass/ volume decreases), reducing the mass of air flowing over the air foils (wings) to create lift. This will necessitate more runway length for takeoff. Already, in Colorado, the runways serving Aspen and Vail have been lengthened by 1,000 ft. to accommodate such changes during the summer months. We can expect similar modifications to be made nation wide as we approach the cusp of the runaway.

- Spread of Tropical Diseases:

We already know that West Nile Fever and Dengue fever will spread to most of the nation by the first year of no seasons, but other viral and parasitic infections will also abound. Two of these are illustrated below:












Thus, worm infestations, especially of the brain (above left) will proliferate as well as elephantiasis,  from  filariasis which will occur throughout the U.S. by 2040. Right now, there are in excess of 9 BILLION worm parasites inhabiting the vertebrates of our world, according to the author of Parasite REX. The human population alone may carry within it up to 2 billion worm parasites, including: hook worm, one of 5,000 forms of tape worm, round worm, trypanosomes, schistosomiasis-causing flukes and the protozoan that causes Toxoplasma (which over 1 billion may carry, mostly in their brains.).

With the stimulative effects of runaway cusp warming these numbers can expect to double or triple, especially amongst the human denizens of the planet. For an excellent insight into what we're in for and how bad it will be consult the paper: Global Climate and Infectious Disease:The Cholera Paradigm, in Science, Vol. 274, 20 December, 1996, p. 2025.

Do you really want to live to 100?

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/william-rivers-pitt/61297/how-to-die-of-dumb

Can Colorado Prevent Newcomers Settling Here - Because of a Water Shortage?

This question came to mind as one processed Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper's recent 'State of the State' speech in which he said (Denver Post, Jan. 30, p. 2A):

"Population growth in Colorado has to figure out a way to use a lot less water or the growth will stop.It's pretty much, I mean, black and white. We find a way to use a lot less water per person or we don't have more people coming here. There is no magic."

This was part of Hick's push for a comprehensive Colorado Water Plan given the dreary current projection that the state faces a 163 billion gallon projected water shortfall by 2050. This is based on the projection that Colorado's current population of 5.3 million will grow to 10 million by then. Along with expansion of "industry" (he doesn't mention fracking by name - but that's definitely one culprit as I will show) this will "leave 2.5 million people parched."

So "preventing people" coming here could manifest in a number of ways. For example, they may already arrive and settle but find - as the forlorn folks coming to the Banning Lewis Ranch subdivision (in El Paso Country)learned too late - there's no water to shower with or wash their dishes. Worse, water "taxes" could be levied on top of utility bills (some proposals have reached $2,700 per household per year).

Why so many coming to Colorado? Many reasons! Many come as retirees as an alternative to a hot, humid place like Florida. Many are mountain lovers and this state boasts the highest average altitude in the nation. Others arrive because of the state's legalization of pot - opting to live in a state where they won't be hounded for their pot habits.  Many other families are moving here because the state's MJ oil business (the oil cannabidiol-  known as "Charlotte's Web" e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2014/12/colorado-promised-land-for-marijuana.html

provides one of the last chances for their afflicted children - suffering from Dravet syndrome - a rare form of epilepsy which completely disables a child's language and social skills.

Whatever the reason, it means the state will either have to develop expensive new water delivery systems - which will have to be paid for by higher utility bills - or find other means of enhancing efficient water use. A 344- page draft released in December lists potential delivery projects costing $18-20 billion. It also mentions the possibility of innovations such as "toilet to tap" systems whereby sewer water can be re-used, e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2014/11/thanks-to-frackers-well-soon-be.html

This would conform with the Colorado Water Plan's  mandate that Colorado residents must "re -use all available waste water as a pre-condition before state officials accept new trans-mountain projects".

The major obstacles to this innovation according the draft, include:

 

- The huge costs of water cleaning using multiple filter cleaning systems

 

- The legal obligations in Colorado to deliver water downstream

 

- The disposal of the contaminants purged from waste water - mainly thousands of gallons a day of super -concentrated salty mixes that must then be injected into deep wells or buried. The mixture is so toxic it can destroy skin on contact.

 

 - Safety and monitoring: This entails installing water monitoring and testing systems sensitive enough to track a wide array of pathogens (including E. Coli. cryptosporidium etc), suspended particles and hard to remove specialty chemicals (i.e. tossed out contraceptives, diet pills, laxatives, anti-depressants

-The "Ick" factor - i.e.  when consumers know the water ingested was only recently used to flush the effluent of another's bowels.

 

But arguably none of these extreme measures - including water rationing - would be needed if fracking wasn't out of control in Colorado.

 

Nowhere has our Neoliberal guv,  in any of his speeches, accepted any responsibility for allowing frackers to run amuck - drilling up to 50,000 frack wells across the state with each one consuming up to 5 million gallons each. The projected total water lost to fracking by 2050 actually will  exceed the shortfall noted earlier by nearly 37 billion gallons! (Using a 4 million gallon per well average consumption for each well and replacement well.)

 

In other words, by banning fracking - like New York has (and New York isn't even an arid state like Colorado)-  the state could immediately reduce its water burden and water loss. It would then enable those newcomers to live here without suffering from draconian measures..

 

Alas, this is unlikely to happen because the tentacles of the oil and gas industry extend throughout our state's political system. Oil and gas fracking lobbyists influence even the so-called environmental oversight groups by creating  pretenders like the "Environmental Policy Alliance".  (Which has been used in advertisements to dun anti-fracker activists as "flat Earthers".)

 

If you plan to come to Colorado to live, for any reason, be sure you're aware of our water limitations, many of which are directly linked to water-intensive fracking that places profits and business above human resources.

 

2015: Will The Pace of Climate Change Be Slowed? Unfortunately, No.

After a tumultuous year of climate upheaval which saw mile-wide tornadoes strike Mississippi and Alabama, a tornado even outside of LA, monster typhoons striking the Philippines - one even so strong it dislodged the polar vortex, and a snow event of epic proportions striking Buffalo - not to mention continued extreme drought in many places, many want to know if 2015 will provide any relief.

Unfortunately, the projections -  based on quantifiable indicators, including the injection -deposition of carbon loads into the atmosphere, and the rate of melting of the Arctic Ice cap  - as well as reduction of Antarctic ice shelf - show this isn't likely to happen.

Germane to the issue of carbon deposition there are three numbers we had better keep close track of if we want to preserve even a semblance of a livable world ('Mystery of the Three Scary Numbers', UTNE Reader, Jan-Feb, 2014, p. 18):

 2 degrees Celsius or 3.6  degrees Fahrenheit

- 565 gigatons or 565 thousand million tons

- 2, 795 gigatons


The first number is the upper threshold for the global mean temperature to increase over this century without seeing the planet go into the crapper. According to climate scientist Bill McKibben, even a 2C increase is fraught with danger, with much longer -more sustained polar vortices, much more frequent and intense tropical cyclones (hurricanes, typhoons), more F5 tornadoes in the U.S., more persistent droughts, higher ocean acidification and dying coral reefs, and more wildfires in the American West. 

The second number represents the peak of humanity's carbon budget. It's the most carbon we can afford to pour into the atmosphere without triggering the 2 C temperature increase.  For reference, humans poured some 30.6 gigatons into the atmosphere in 2011 and it is projected that unless massive carbon cuts go into effect we will pass the 565 gigaton threshold in 16 years. That means we will likely trigger the 2 C increase in that time - with all the havoc that implies.

The third number is perhaps the most worrisome of all and the one that instills fear into most who know what the future portends if we don't stop our reckless foolishness -including the fracking craze. It represents the total stored reserves of carbon held by coal, gas and oil companies. It was first highlighted and brought to global attention by the Carbon Tracker Initiative - a group of London financial analysts and environmentalists.  It is what the fossil fuel industry plans to exploit in the future by its whole spectrum of methods, whether deep sea drilling, oil shale fracking or natural gas fracking.

It is, in other words, five times more carbon than will already blow a gasket in our world and send it toward runaway greenhouse perdition.

As the UTNE piece observes:

"Burning those fossil fuels we would enter a world of science fiction dystopia: a rise in sea levels not seen in human history, species extinction, droughts, super storms, heat waves from hell....and consequences you cannot imagine".

So what does 2015 portend in the way of climate crises, events? 

Polar vortex intrusions:

More are expected - both early this year and later. Again, recall the significance of the polar vortex: that is, it's the first sign of an ongoing Arctic instability associated with its extraordinary polar warming - again first revealed by Prof. Gunther Weller as early as 1986. As the melting ice proceeds faster the instability will become more and more pronounced leading to more such events in the years to come. Until the point is reached that the 'fridge' has totally defrosted leading to monumental climate upheaval and prolonged heat waves around the world - as well as the first "year of no seasons."

Violent tornado season:

Because of the several frigid dips expected of the polar vortex, there will be inevitable collisions with warm air flowing up from the Gulf.  The colder the air in the vortex, the more violent the result when warm air meets cold - setting off hundreds of tornadoes in the plains, southeast.  As years go by,  leading to the first 'year of no seasons'  ca. 2040,  this template will be repeated with ever increasing intensity.

Wildfires in the West, Southwest:

Again, the dry conditions in the region set the stage for raging wildfires in the spring.  Adding to the crisis is that the water tables from California to Colorado are dramatically low - leading to the proposal of extreme solutions to cope, such as recycling toilet water, e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2014/11/thanks-to-frackers-well-soon-be.html

Fracking in the same arid states hasn't helped the situation given each frack well consumes up to 5 million gallons of fresh water. Not to put too fine a point on it, but it's the height of insanity as much as using corn to make ethanol.

Further loss of land to rising seas:

A recent visit to Barbados (last May) reminded us of the extent to which the island is at risk of losing its precious beaches. With each passing year more coastal land is reclaimed due to the inexorably rising sea and now- unlike thirty years ago - you won't find one single climate change skeptic. (Though there are the few oddballs who refuse to go the anthropogenic route).  

Barbados isn't alone in this phenomenon, but the problem is that unless you live there or you're on certain islands like Kiribati, see e.g.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/22/kiribati-president-buying-land_n_5860064.html

you will be oblivious to the threat.

Collapse of Greenland's Ice Sheet:

This is one of the 'feeding factors' leading to sea rise and will ramp up this year as the Jokulhlaup phenomenon reaches new intensity.  Recall, "jokulhlaups”or sudden glacial bursts of melting runoff from glaciers, first emerged with a landmark paper in 2008 ('Jokulhlaup Observed in Greenland ice sheet’, in Eos: Transactions of the American Geophysical Union , Vol. 89, No. 35, 26 Aug. 2008, p. 221). The cited paper specifically noted the separation of a “chunk of ice the size of Manhattan” (19 sq. miles)from Ellesmere Island in Canada’s northern Arctic. In the case of the increasing Greenland Jokulhlaup we are looking not just at one massive breakoff, but the loss of perhaps 45% of the entire Greenland ice sheet on account of the underground splintering effects producing ever larger cracks in the ice and the inability of it to support the overlying permafrost and other ice. Thus, onset will be sudden and perhaps more like a "terror attack" from nature.  Watch for this phenomenon to reach new heights this year.

What can you do to stay informed, apart from reading this blog?

I suggest every reader needs to obtain Naomi Klein's This Changes Everything: Capitalism Vs. Climate Change this year and study it cover to cover  - I'd say as a New Year's resolution.  Klein uses her trademark rigorous logic combined with scientific facts to prove capitalism is unable to affect or alter  the course of climate change due to its inherent dependence on cheap fossil fuels and need for continuous growth. Also,  the time for marginal fixes has expired, thus forcing us to now make radical changes in how we live. 

 We simply don't have the luxury of using all the carbon that lies inside the Earth. Yet capitalism's never ending growth engine would demand we do so to support the expansion of new markets for exploitation.  

Answering A Columnist's Dumb Fracking Questions

Take one inspired and agitated relatively wealthy progressive legislator, whose vacation domicile has been despoiled by fracking wells, and what do you get? Well, one activated member of the political elites now out to work on behalf of the PEOPLE - as opposed to shilling for oil and gas corporations!  Such is the case of Colorado congressman Jared Polis - who now has the state's energy predators running scared as well as scores of state lawmakers in their pockets.

Polis, because of his proposals to regulate fracking locally, has actually been branded a "terrorist" (by Steve Durham, a lobbyist for the Colorado Association of Home Builders) and also an "extortionist" by the fossil fuel industry's media lackeys including Denver Post Libertarian columnist Vincent Carroll ('Jared Polis' Big Adventure', Sunday, July 13).

Now, as signatures for Polis' initiatives play out here in Colorado, money, power and politics are clashing in a way that some commentators assert "hasn't been seen in 40 years."  But the issue is huge and make no mistake could well have repercussions for your own burg or state as the fracking wars play out nationally.

In Colorado, citizen anger erupted after the Denver Post published an analysis of how many oil spills have occurred in our state, many threatening our precious water stores.  Worse, the Post investigation found that state fracking has polluted the soil as well as water.  According to the Post (May 4, p. 1A.):

“There’s about one gallon of toxic liquid penetrating soil every eight minutes.”

In addition, the Post notes: “drillers churn up 135 to 500 tons of dirt with every new well, some of it soaked with hydrocarbons and laced with potentially toxic minerals and salts.”

Given this, is it any wonder adults – kids living near frack sites often have severe health complaints, ranging from horrific rashes to bleeding orifices to breathing problems? According to Eugene Kelly, chief of soil and crop science at Colorado State University – quoted in the piece:

“The overall impact of the oil and gas boom is like a death sentence for soil. It could be the next limiting component when we talk about feeding the planet and having a sustainable lifestyle- - because all the good stuff is gone and the soil is being degraded.”

 

And the most astounding and equally disturbing finding:

 

“State data also show that 12.3 percent of the past 1,000 spills (since June 24, 2012) already had contaminated groundwater before companies began cleanups.”

 

Beyond the contamination of soil and groundwater, the Post's data analysis showed that drilling of new wells unearthed an estimated 652,000 tons a year of sludge-like drill cuttings. These are supposed to be taken to special landfills but more often than not  spread them instead on “leased fields”.

How did Polis enter the ring? Well, after his own 'Ox' was gored on visiting his vacation home in Weld County and seeing a frack operation despoiling the landscape. He then became mobilized to use his wealth on citizens' behalf to expedite ballot measures for local control of fracking operations in every locality that wants to see them reined in. The Oil and Gas bunch went nuts, and so did our guv  - John Hickenlooper-  who is also a pal (he once drank fracked water to show there is nothing wrong with it - a one time stunt I doubt he will repeat.)

In order to try to thwart Polis' efforts, Hick (our Neolib Guv) cooperated with lobbyists and Colo. Home Builders Association to seek a "compromise" measure. But, as Carroll notes, the effort to try and square the circle "split both the energy industry and home builders" - hence the remark about Polis being a "terrorist" - which shows the extent to which the bogus "war on terror" has created collateral damage on our language.

Carroll in his piece is riled because Polis' initiatives reveal:

"a spectacle in which a wealthy, powerful individual pledges to fund ballot measures feared by nearly the entire business community."

Well,, uh, fuck the business community, nuh?  I say that because to me citizens' health and their environmental quality trumps business - but hey that's just me. I prefer to be able to drink water free of xylene, toluene, benzene and 633 other carcinogens, and breathe air free of all the contaminants -  plus methane - the Denver Post exposed in its 2-part series.

But let's get back to reality and Carroll's claims. In terms of wealth, Polis' is decidedly on the low end - roughly in the mid- double digit millions. In no way does his wealth even remotely compare to that of the billionaire  Koch brothers, or the Oil tycoon, T. Boone Pickens. Let's get that straight from the get go. And at least Polis, having had his ox gored (seeing wells drilled across the street from his property), is willing to put those millions to practical legislative use for citizens  - so give him credit. But this is also what has the business community and especially the frackers, shitting bricks. See, in their worst nightmares they can visualize this scenario playing out not only here in Colorado, but elsewhere in the country. The thought they won't be able to poison our soil, water and air for big profits has them staying up all night long.

Now, as to Carroll's insipid questions, posted at the tail end of his Jared jeremiad, he writes:

"If oil and gas production constitutes an outrage on property adjacent to the Polis' retreat, where exactly should it be allowed?"

That's easy! Only where citizens by their vote in passing the relevant referendum, deem it allowable!

Indeed, the precedent already exists!  As per an AP report published July 1 (Denver Post (p. 15A),

"New York's top court handed a victory to opponents of hydraulic fracturing for natural gas by affirming the right of municipalities to ban the practice within their borders."

This State Court of Appeals "affirmed a mid-level decision by an appeals court that said state oil and gas law doesn't trump the authority of local governments to control land use through zoning."

Which has been the case in this country for many years. Thus, a neighbor in a residentially zoned neighborhood cannot just suddenly decide to start a hog farm, or now - in Colorado - a marijuana grow operation. Local zoning ordinances prohibit it! The same clearly applies to the practice of fracking,  irrespective of its claimed economic benefits.  It doesn't matter! Whatever those benefits are they don't trump citizens' rights to proscribe the operations via zoning. Indeed, the whole practice of zoning was established to be able to exclude those intrusive, disruptive or inappropriate activities (including porno dives and pawn shops) that didn't fit in with a neighborhood's profile. I mean, Jeebus, why would any right-thinking citizen want pawn shops or sex toy emporiums right next to schools or their homes ? So why would you want a frack well right in your neighborhood?

Carroll next asks:

"Should it be allowed only where the horizon is empty in all directions? "

Again, the placement in terms of disrupting views is not as critical as the environmental and health impacts which that proximity foretells. The impact on soil, air and WATER!

Carroll's parting shot is to denigrate the distance of Polis' guest house from the now abandoned frack well (800'),  as well as its quality ("looks like a large shed")

But it doesn't matter what the distance is, since as we know frackers can insert their drills from a distance, intruding far beneath any home and wreak havoc. Also, it doesn't matter what the guest house looks like. So long as a living, breathing human can visit and stay there - and be subject to all the frack toxins - Polis has an argument.

Alas, Vincent Carroll doesn't.

Today is World Population Day- How Much Do You Know?

Today, July 11th, is designated World Population Day, with the objective to focus global citizens' attention on an unsustainable growth of human numbers beyond the planet's carrying capacity.

The carrying capacity basically means the ability of the planet's resources to sustain existing human numbers. Estimates in the past have run from 2 billion (Isaac Asimov - in his 1976 Barbados lecture) to 3 billion (Richard Heinberg). In any case if human numbers are now approaching 7.5 billion we are way over in any case. 

Another marker is the fact we are currently consuming the equivalent resources of 1.5 Earths per year, which is clearly unsustainable. The excellent BBC documentary on the Earth's population (hosted by Richard Attenborough) entitled: 'How Many People Can Earth Hold?' also provides much needed realistic insights on sustainability and the planet's bio-support capacity.

Attenborough doesn't pull punches or mince words, noting that every current major societal, environmental problem:  from clogged highways, to overflowing hospital ERs to crowded schools, as well as scarcity of commodities (reflected in their much increased prices) to fouling of our water and atmosphere and the greenhouse effect, can be laid at the feet of too many people on this planet - each needing food, air, water and energy from the time it's born.

Of all the resources, the most critical is water because no one can live without it for very long. Even now, 1 billion people live in water-stressed conditions, meaning that renewable water supplies drop below 1,700 cubic meters per capita. One notable ‘State of the World’ report (2000, pp. 46-47), warned that the ever increasing water deficits will likely spark “water wars” by 2025. As one Mexican water-truck driver observes on the BBC special (while making his rounds in Mexico City): "Not very long from now, we will see wars over water. It will be more important than oil. Even now, we can see how little people think of it and how much they waste it". Indeed!

Attenborough reinforces this observation by noting the water intensity of the various beverages, foods we produce. For example, merely to produce one cup of coffee requires the consumption of 120 liters of water. To get a single can of beer requires 150 liters, and to obtain that 'Big Mac' or quarter pounder takes some 8,000 liters.

And we won't even get into fracking, with each well fracked requiring up to 5 million gallons of freshwater which is then despoiled for further use. If 10 million frack wells are projected world wide by 2020 (according to T. Boone Pickens in a recent CBS Early Show appearance) then you can do the math and figure out that means 4  million gallons (on average)  x 10 million wells = 40 TRILLION gallons of water lost for human consumption - in a world already running dry from climate change.

The program also  brings up the issue of how to compute the carrying capacity, or rather the bio-support capacity of the planet. If one divides the total output of bio-productivity (determined in terms of food crops generated per hectare, water volume per hectare, etc.) and divide that by the population, one can get some idea. One expert to whom Attenborough turned calculated that based on his models - if we wanted a planet with equally shared bio-productive output - each human would get TWO hectares. If we inhabited such a world, then the planet might support 15 billion people. One could get this to eighteen billion if one reduced the hectare average to 0.5 per person, or about that for each Rwandan.

The reality is that the bio-productive output is not equal, and using a map of the world, Attenborough shows the divergences, what with the UK consuming 5.5 hectares per person, and the USA, 9.5 hectares. Thus, the average USA person is consuming more than four times that which is defined as a fair, equal apportioning of resources across all the numbers on the planet. According to Attenborough's expert, by this reckoning of such unequal apportioning of output, the planet can only hold 1.5 billion people.

Population Pollyannas might argue, 'Well, no problem, just get everyone to reduce to Rwandan hectare consumption level'.  Right, and if you can show me any way that would be politically implemented I have a patch of beach in Barbados for you - for free!

Attenborough then presents some of the more draconian solutions that have been used in over-populated nations, such as India and China. In the first, forced sterilization saw nearly 8 million males sterilized during Indira Gandhi's reign but that had to be stopped on account of massive public outcry. Then China, trying to escape from its famine-ravaged past enacted "one child only" laws with serious sanctions. While people may seethe at such a law, they enabled China to achieve economic superpower status within a generation and now compete directly with the U.S. As Attenborough notes, if that law hadn't been enacted China would now have 400 million additional people and still be at the mercy of famine from too few grains, foods or ability to import them. Nor would it have the military and civilian infrastructure it displays today - including for alternative energy.

The U.S. doesn't need such draconian methods, only minor changes for example in its tax code. Taking away the child tax credit, or having a sliding scale of increased taxes when people have more children, while giving credits when they adopt more kids in need. The problem is, the U.S. is already overpopulated in terms of the resources it can deliver for 310 million people. Illegal immigration from already overpopulated nations in Central America is making it worse, since each of them will likely adopt consumptive U.S. habits.

How much do you know about population-related issues? Test yourself with this pop quiz of 8 questions:

http://www.populationconnection.org/site/PageServer?pagename=pop_quiz

See also:
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/jaime-oneill/56979/we-are-too-many-los-angeles-as-a-preview-of-what-was-to-come

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2014/06/needed-prevent-2-billion-births-by-2050.html

When Progressives Sell Out And Turn Into Shills For The Fracking Industry

How does a so-called liberal go from joining campus "die-ins" protesting the Gulf War (with all the slogans about trading blood for oil) to promoting the fossil-fuel industry as "part of the solution" to climate change? One seeks to answer that  after examining the profile of Tisha Conoly Schuller, now a PR flack for the frackers.

These were questions I asked after reading Schuller's abominable PR piece in the Denver Post Sunday and then checking on her profile. Schuller's PR promotional material for the gas frackers was entitled "Colorado A Model For Energy Dialogue" which is itself a joke. What Colorado actually is, not to school Tisha too severely, is a model for how the oil and gas lobbies can capture a Democratic governor and all the state machinery - to ease up on regulatory compliance (what weak regulations there are).  Thus critics see a lax system of enforcement by the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, which has a reputation for understaffing and most of us believe to be a front for the fracking companies.  (The COGCC currently has only seventeen inspectors, not enough to visit even half of the state's 45,000 wells every year - and offers heavily discounted fines if the frackers spill their foul, fracked water into a reservoir.)

Let's return to Tisha and her background and how she mutated from progressive environmentalist  to fracker PR flack. If one examines the background closely one beholds a more or less typical profile for a future sellout. Her transmutation is summarized by one online site thusly:


Brandishing her Stanford degree, Schuller sought work across the spectrum — from activism to regulation to consulting to working directly in industry — and saw her applications rejected repeatedly. Even the Environmental Protection Agency turned her down. She taught preschool for a year, then landed a position as an administrative assistant at a consulting firm that involved a one-hour commute.

Already I am hearing the sounds of the world's smallest violin playing "Willows weep for me".  The poor little dear, no job prospects - and out of Stanford U no less! What could the world be coming to? We are informed that "paying jobs for environmental activists were no more abundant in the early 1990s than they are today".. Well that could apply to a whole spate of fields, including astronomy, archaeology, anthropology, psychology and even sociology. But does such a circumstance force one to sell out to the enemy? Well I guess it does for an erstwhile "environmental activist" who suddenly finds her niche (and riches) elsewhere. The bio spot goes on:

With persistence, she eventually moved into field work for clients, mostly in the oil-and-gas industry: cleanup and remediation of drill sites, permitting processes for exploration and pipelines, environmental education for staff. In 1996 the company asked her to open an office in Colorado, a state she knew from family visits.
 

 So now we see how serendipity - combined with a willingness to leave scruples over environmental pollution, can change a life....for the putative "best". How successful has the little sellout been?

Over nearly four years of Schuller's leadership, COGA has forged a number of significant victories and alliances in the regulatory and political arenas. Despite routine clashes with regulators, the industry has gotten much of what it wanted out of the rule-making rituals of the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission

Well Lordy be! Am I absolutely surprised? No. Neither am I surprised at the chutzpah displayed in her Denver Post PR piece, as when she scribbles:

"It is healthy to question the safety, effectiveness and logistics of oil and gas development in your community. When taken too far and driven by fear, however, this investigation can foolishly ban production of an energy resource that we all use every day."

She also takes pains to paint the robust anti-fracking contingent as unscientific or pseudo-scientific, as when she refers to a recent vote (on a fracking moratorium) by Loveland residents last week:

"They stood up for their neighbors, who work in the oil and gas industry, for science and the responsible development of our natural resources."

Which is bollocks. As one letter writer to the Post subsequently observed:

"The pro-fracking pundits will no doubt trumpet the results of the Loveland fracking moratorium election as a victory for the industry, but it should be seen as a hollow one. The industry spent $1 million to eke out a 900-vote victory.

It should be obvious to anyone that in a true democracy with a level media playing field, an outcome more reflective of the real, sustainable, healthier, long-term needs of the citizens of Loveland would have been the clear result."


Which is a spot-on observation. As for "standing up for science", Schuller doesn't know what she's talking about, or is so immersed in PR bloviation whe can no longer discern fact from fiction. Indeed, in  the same Denver newspaper her PR piece appeared, one finds (May 2, p. 1A)  an extensive examination of data showing that the number of spills reached an all time record last year at 578 (according to the COGOC data).  In addition(ibid.):

“State data also show that 12.3 percent of the past 1,000 spills (since June 24, 2012) already had contaminated groundwater before companies began cleanups.”

Beyond the contamination of soil and groundwater, the Post's data analysis showed that the  drilling of new wells unearthed an estimated 652,000 tons a year of sludge-like drill cuttings. These are supposed to be taken to special landfills but more often than not  are spread instead on “leased fields”.  The Post then cited just the volume created after the March, 2013 Parachute Creek spill in western Colorado.  It noted:

 

“The Williams and Bargath companies recovered 11,800 gallons of liquid hydrocarbons. They’ve excavated 2, 275 tons of contaminated soil, hauling it for burial at the ECDC facility in Utah.”

Process the dimensions and scale of this filth, polluting our landscape and the need to haul ever more tons away as the existing landfills grow into mountains- then tell me there's "no science" behind it. In a subsequent examination (Denver Post, May 8, 1A) the article pointed out that scientists have found that Colorado's front Range oil and gas boom has been emitting three times more methane than previously thought. The rate, at 19.3 tons an HOUR. This is serious given the EPA has determined methane is 20 time more potent (i.e. higher forcing component) than CO2.   This study was done at the National Atmospheric and Oceanic Administration's Cooperative Institute for Research on the Environment.

As for water pollution from fracking, we already know the extent of it even if the frackers aren't totally forthcoming about disclosure.  According to a report obtained by Sen. Diane DeGette, the product of an inquiry by the House Energy and Commerce Committee two years ago, fourteen of the nation's most active hydraulic fracturing companies used 866 million gallons of chemical fracturing products, and more than 650 of the chemicals named in the report were known carcinogens . Among the choice chemicals documented as having been  injected into the  state's water supply:

- Benzene,, a powerful bone-marrow poison (aplastic anemia) associated with leukemia, breast and uterine cancer

- Styrene, which may cause eye and mucous membrane irritation, neurotoxic effects in the central and peripheral nervous systems.

- Toluene, which may cause muscular incoordination, tremors, hearing loss, dizziness, vertigo, emotional instability and delusions, liver and kidney damage, and anemia.

- Xylene, with cancer-causing (mainly in the kidneys, liver) and neurotoxic effects, as well as reproductive abnormalities.

- Methylene chloride, which may cause cancer, liver and kidney damage, central nervous system disorders and COPD.

Clearly, science is on the side of the critics and those who seek to have local bans on fracking, not on the frackers or their PR shills.

In her PR piece, Schuller claims that the pro-ban side has "in the past successfully used fear and misinformation to lure other cities into passing illegal bans on energy development. These bans trample on private property rights, hurt the economy and curtail efforts toward energy independence."

 Which is so deep in BS one can hardly wade through it. The bans, in fact, are NOT illegal because the state's edicts- whatever they may be - do not trump citizens' rights. And only flesh and blood citizens have rights, states don't. States have prerogatives.  Thus, whatever local bans may be passed this November are totally legal, all Shculler's nonsense to the contrary.


As for private property rights, whose?  If  a frack well is set up 500' away and my home is fracked from beneath and methane pollutes my water it is MY property rights being violated. If this isn't acknowledged then all concepts of private property are blown through a cocked hat. They're meaningless.

In her PR piece, Schuller is big on attacking all NIMBY-ism and portrays herself as willing to go along with sacrifices as the rest of us little peons should be. But is she really? Or is she another hypocrite bidding us to do what she says not what she does, or how she lives?  Boulder fracking critic Sam Schabacker hits the nail on the head concerning all these PR bloviators:

"They love to talk about how we all use energy and we have to take responsibility for that energy use. That's all well and good, but they're not talking about putting a fracking well close to their homes. Tisha Schuller lives up in the mountains outside of Boulder, an area that's never going to be fracked because there isn't shale under that location. They're not sharing the burden; they're imposing it on the people of Colorado."

So now we know:  Tisha Schuller is full of it. All her beseeching and imploring for us to just "settle down" and accept the sacrifice of energy development are hollow because she doesn't sacrifice herself. So why should the rest of us?  Indeed, none of the political elites who advocate for fracking, whether Obama, Hillary or any of the Repukes, live near fracking sites - so their homes and environs aren't threatened. Thus, they can afford to sound all cuddly with concepts of "energy independence" and natural gas fracking - which is fucking up our whole state (see top image).

Tisha saves her biggest chunk of bullshit for last when she writes:

"We all want to live in a special state where the economy is as healthy as the ecosystem.."

But the promise of fracking is a false one as pointed out by Richard Heinberg in his new book, Snake Oil: How Fracking's False Promise Imperils Our Future'

The bottom line here is that the ecosystem can never be healthy if fracking forms the basis of a state's economy. One would have to accept that hundreds of toxins in fracked water are acceptable, not to mention the fracking itself depleting our water reserves in a notoriously dry -drought prone state, oh and that pumping more methane into the atmosphere helps climate change. What all this means is that Americans have to understand that they face a tradeoff, in either having cheap energy or expensive health costs down the line, and a degraded quality of life. We can't have both and anyone attempting to sell the horse pockey that we can needs to be exposed.

Only an idiot would buy into Tisha Schuller's spiel and the need now is to teach the frackers a heavy civics lesson come November - outlawing the bastards' operations across the state! If they want to fuck up another state's air and water, let them -but we make a stand they don't do it here.

The "tragedy of the commons" is that a relatively few frack- crazy people can permanently ruin this planet for all the rest of us. Our job as citizens is to ensure this doesn't happen.
--------------------------

Addendum:

As per an AP report published in today's Denver Post (p. 15A), "New York's top court handed a victory to opponents of hydraulic fracturing for natural gas by affirming the right of municipalities to ban the practice within their borders."

This State Court of Appeals "affirmed a mid-level decision by an appeals court that said state oil and gas law doesn't trump the authority of local governments to control land use through zoning."

Which has been the case in this country for many years. Thus, a neighbor in a residential zoned neighborhood cannot just suddenly decide to start a hog farm, or now - in Colorado - a marijuana grow operation. Local zoning ordinances prohibit it! The same clearly applies to the practice of fracking irrespective of its claimed economic benefits.  It doesn't matter! Whatever those benefits are they don't trump citizens' rights to proscribe the operations via zoning. Indeed, the whole practice of zoning was established to be able to exclude those intrusive, disruptive or inappropriate activities (including porno dives and pawn shops) that didn't fit in with a neighborhood's profile. I mean, Jeebus, why would any right-thinking citizen want pawn shops or sex toy emporiums right next to schools or their homes ? So why would you want a frack well right in your neighborhood?


The court itself, according to the piece, did not consider the merits or otherwise of fracking but simply the principle of "home rule" authority of municipalities to regulate their land use.

Look out, Colorado gas frackers! You are next in line on the banning  banner!