The prevention of methane leaks is an imperative measure if we hope to curb our overall greenhouse gas contributions, as methane has a Global Warming Potential (GWP) of 25 (compared to Carbon Dioxide's GWP of 1). If the Obama administration wants to expand upon its recently proposed commitment to tackling climate change, it could use its executive prerogative to encourage the developing shale gas industry to prevent these leakages. The administration should also seek to limit other carbon emissions from natural gas. Natural gas already burns cleaner than coal with fewer CO2 emissions, and the implementation of these carbon caps could make it even cleaner. Renewables will not be at their full potential capacity for years. As we press forward towards the clean energy infrastructure, we do need a "stepping stone" fuel that produces the most minimal emissions possible. Natural gas will of course not be the panacea for our overall climate problem- any solution must eventually come from an eclectic mix wind, solar, nuclear, and other non-emitting energies. Related Article: http://www.good.is/posts/crown-capital-eco-management-the-great-renewable-energy-scam

1. Crown Capital Eco
Management
Can Shale Gas Be Safe for
Us and the Environment?

2. Can Shale Gas Be Safe for
Us and the Environment?

3. • Environmentalists, local communities, and civil actors
maintain that hydrofracking in its current unregulated
form is intolerable for our environment and public
health. The process is familiar and infamous. After
extractors drill a well, they pump millions of gallons of
water, sand, and various chemicals into it to fracture
the shale the gas is stored in and allow the gas to flow
freely out of the well. The Sierra Club estimates that
80-300 tons of chemicals may be used in hydrofracking,
including volatile organic compounds (VOCs) like
benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene. While
shale gas can serve as a stepping-stone towards
renewables, its production could leave our aquifers
decimated with chemicals that pose significant health
risks. Benzene in particular is known to cause cancer,
neurological harm, and adverse developmental effects
in pregnant women.

4. • Such potential health risks, coupled with the
environmental impact of the physical aspect of drilling,
have compelled the widespread anti-fracking movement
among environmentalists and local communities alike.
Not all of the popular dissent calls for an absolute ban
on hydrofracking, however. Civil society would not be so
opposed to fracking if gas companies would disclose
details of the extraction process and attempt to mitigate
the harmful effects. Prominent environmental groups,
such as the National Resources Defense Council
(NRDC), would simply prefer if gas companies put such
effective safeguards in place. The NRDC lists out some
of these proposed regulations which include barring the
most sensitive lands and watersheds from
hydrofracking, reducing methane leaks by fixing plants'
pipelines, and ensuring that local communities take part
in the zoning and planning of fracking sites.

5. • The prevention of methane leaks is an imperative measure if
we hope to curb our overall greenhouse gas contributions, as
methane has a Global Warming Potential (GWP) of 25
(compared to Carbon Dioxide's GWP of 1). If the Obama
administration wants to expand upon its recently proposed
commitment to tackling climate change, it could use its
executive prerogative to encourage the developing shale gas
industry to prevent these leakages. The administration should
also seek to limit other carbon emissions from natural gas.
Natural gas already burns cleaner than coal with fewer CO2
emissions, and the implementation of these carbon caps could
make it even cleaner. Renewables will not be at their full
potential capacity for years. As we press forward towards the
clean energy infrastructure, we do need a "stepping stone"
fuel that produces the most minimal emissions possible.
Natural gas will of course not be the panacea for our overall
climate problem- any solution must eventually come from an
eclectic mix wind, solar, nuclear, and other non-emitting
energies.

6. • Related Article: http://www.good.is/posts/crown-
capital-eco-management-the-great-renewable-energy-
scam
• There is a legislative will throughout the country, both
at the state and local levels, to implement regulations
that the NRDC stipulates, although relatively few have
passed. This past May, Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.)
and Rep. Chris Gibson (R- NY) reintroduced the
Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals
(FRAC) Act, which would require fracking companies to
disclose which chemicals they use in their drilling to
state agencies and the EPA. The National Conference on
State Legislatures lists some of the various pieces of
legislation that deal with the regulation of hydrofracking
at the state level.

7. • Like the stipulations of the FRAC Act, many of
these proposed and enacted state regulations
involve the disclosure of hydrofracking
chemicals. In September 2010, Wyoming
became the first state to require full disclosure
after the state's Oil and Gas Conservation
Commission set forth the rule. Apparently the
rule is stringent enough that Wyoming
Governor Matt Mead rebuffed proposed rules
from the Department of the Interior that
would have required more disclosure of
chemicals from petroleum companies.

8. • Taking from Wyoming's example, Michigan's
Department of Environmental Quality now requires lists
of chemical additives used in hydrofracking, and Texas
legislators have enacted a similar law requiring public
disclosure. Two other legislative pieces on the floor in
California (Senate Bill AB 591) and Illinois (Senate Bill
664) would require public disclosure of chemicals, as
would bills in Pennsylvania and Massachusetts.
Disclosure bills have of course failed in other states, like
New York, a critical region that includes a larger portion
of the Marcellus Shale Formation. New York and
Pennsylvania have also made legislative attempts at
requiring well inspections, regulations, and spacing
between wells in order to analyze and mitigate the
threats posed by fracking chemicals.

9. • Disclosure of the chemicals used, of course, does not
automatically translate into keeping them from being
used. State energy departments must not allow gas
companies to frack if they find the chemicals to be
egregiously harmful. In 2011, the movement for
fracking regulations achieved a legislative victory when
Maryland passed the Marcellus Shale Safe Drilling Act of
2011. In a nutshell, this law requires the Maryland
Department of Energy to assess the impacts of natural
gas drilling before it can to issue permits to gas
companies to drill. Each drilling applicant must include
regulations, including a plan to minimize the effects of
drilling on wetlands, forests, and other critical habitats;
using only fracking fluids approved by the Department
of Energy; and a plan for periodic testing to determine if
the drilling or fracking processes had affected the
ground or surface water in the drilling area.

10. • Of course, other states have been hesitant to
follow Maryland's example. Virginia,
Pennsylvania, New York, and other states in
the Marcellus Shale Formation must pass
similar measures if we hope to see this rapidly
growing industry be safe for rural
communities, the environment, and our
climate. Yet petroleum companies will likely
use their lobbying and financial means to
delay the passing of such legislation, as they
have done before to have states quickly
approve fracking permits before regulations
could be put in place.

11. • But the legislative and civil will to hold gas
companies accountable for their fracking is
still strong. Maryland is a stalwart example of
this with its 2011 law. The lobbying culture of
natural gas companies in the state legislatures
and Congress is lax to change, but if the
government reaffirms its commitment to
protecting our public health, our environment,
our climate, and our drinking water, we could
see more regulations like those put up in
Maryland that would bypass corporate
interests. Let's hope more legislatures put
common good above the corporate good of
the gas companies.
•