He snidely replied, "We're against the pollution."
Coming from the labor movement, where unions routinely join each other's picket lines and refuse to cross them, I'm shocked that environmental groups wouldn't stand strong with the demands of rural Pennsylvanians to ban or stop fracking, forever.
- publicly change their official positions to anti-gas, anti-fracking,
- make defeating natural gas an equal priority as stopping oil and coal (including the allocation of staff, media, and funding),
- farm their websites and delete pro-gas posts and reports,
- and make some public apologies to victims of gas drilling and those of us that live in the gas patch.
"John Podesta, the president of [Center for American Progress], has appeared alongside T. Boone Pickens, the oil baron who funded Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and who is promoting wind energy and natural gas. Carl Pope, the head of the Sierra Club, has made the rounds on Capitol Hill with the head of the Chesapeake Energy Company, Aubrey McClendon"
"As we move to a clean energy future, the Sierra Club is generally not opposed to continued production from existing gas fields"
Greenpeace views natural gas as the “least worst” option among fossil fuels that can be used as a temporary bridging technology while we make the transition to clean renewable energy like wind and solar.Natural gas development must not displace the development of renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies. Greenpeace opposes all subsidies to the natural gas sector as they inevitably take place at the expense of energy conservation and efficiency, and most importantly at the expense of renewables.
Hydraulic fracture methods (“fracking”) are associated with a range of environmental impacts, some of which are not fully understood. It’s possible that the carbon footprint of shale gas may be significantly greater than for conventional gas. Greenpeace is opposed to fracking until the environmental impacts are understood, regulated and mitigated.
On 8/11/10, Brune says,Yes, we need to use natural gas as our country makes the transition from the dirtiest energy sources (coal and oil) to clean and renewable sources like wind and solar. And yes, if we want that gas, we will have to drill for it.
Here is Michael Brune's appearance on CNBC's Mad Money, again pitching natural gas as a bridge fuel.We see through it. Natural gas is not a "bridge to a clean energy future." Extracting natural gas from the Marcellus Shale does more to aggravate climate change than coal, according to a Cornell study published in the May issue of Climatic Change Letters.I am cautiously hopeful, however, that strong regulation and government oversight will make drilling safe, because we sure could use the help of natural gas as we push quickly and aggressively toward a truly clean energy future powered by wind, solar, and other renewable resources.
There are trillions of dollars of public and private investment, not to mention thousands of good people working, in natural gas drilling and infrastructure.
Every egg that's put in the baskets of gas companies from college endowments, pension funds, governments' budgets, and others is an egg that is not used to put Americans to work on green construction, manufacturing, and dismantling the infrastructure that causes harm.
Fracking can't be done "safely." An obvious point, is there will always be the danger of a geologic pathway in the well bore or a a well casing failure leeching gas into the drinking water aquifers of residents nearby, even when everything goes as planned. A recent Duke University study illustrates this risk. Also, if you have followed the issue, there are many, many other risks, including,
- Hazardous chemical manufacturing, transportation, and storage,
- Pipeline explosions and leaks,
- Legal drilling waste disposal and storage,
- Illegal dumping of hazardous waste by the industry,
- Traffic accidents, and
- Wildlife impacts (PDF)