2011 was the year that fracking became a household word. A little over a year ago opposition to fracking was limited to a select group of environmental activists and people unfortunate to have their water supplies contaminated by neighboring fracking operations. But by the end of the year major media was reporting on independent scientific investigations that linked fracking with water pollution. And federal and state agencies were responding to the growing apprehension about water contamination with more studies and more regulation. What has changed in the last 12 months to ratchet up opposition to this use of hydraulic fracturing to extract natural gas from the deep recesses of shale deposits? On this episode of Locus Focus we are joined by former ProPublica reporting fellow Nicholas Kusnetz, whose articles about controversies surrounding fracking have helped reframe public understanding about the true environmental and health impacts of this practice.
Nicholas Kusnetz is a Middlebury fellow in environmental journalism and a freelance journalist. Until recently he was a reporting fellow at the online investigative journalism website ProPublica.
- KBOO
Comments
Canada's "remote" regional fracking/tar sand activity
Hello! I've recently begun to explore your archives. I'm in southern Colorado and much appreciate gathering information on issues of concern from other parts of the US and the world. I had not thought to register - but had to interrupt listening to your discussion of northeast BC and northwest Alberta's fracking and tar sand activities. The repeated observation that "hardly anyone lives there" was driving me nuts!
I appreciate that one of your points was that devastation in the region is out-of-sight, therefore out-of-mind. You rightly mentioned this also in relation to clear cutting. But as far as "no one living there" I beg to differ!
First Nations peoples are actively working against the devastation of their lands in the Fort McMurray region re tar sands. In fact, they could use more publicity so please, if you have opportunity, research this further as a global issue. Large toxic holding ponds are located shockingly close to the Athabasca River. Should they ever leak in a significant way - the toxins end in the Arctic Ocean, and will poison the Athabasca and Mackenzie Rivers en route. Devastation in the tar sands area - if development continues - could expand to cover a region the size of Florida.
I farmed for several decades in northeastern BC. I know the aspen/boreal forest from daily contact. Wildlife habitat loss, already serious due to late 20thC gas/oil/coal and timber industry, is all the more severe with the increased fuel based economic 'boom' in this part of Canada. The people who live there - more than you may think - and certainly the First Nations people, and certainly great and magnificent wildlife species are all worthy of deep and utmost recognition and respect. This includes significant numbers of lovely and hapless songbirds that fly great distances from the southern reaches of the North American continent to nest in disappearing forests.
I do know you meant no disrespect - but I am so concerned that people not familiar with the region are so ill informed. It works well for the industry that most of North America believes the region is silently uninhabitated but for the odd moose or bear. When/if you have opportunity to be 'on the ground', in the forest and open areas, you can experience the profound life and and beauty that is ever-present there.
(BTW, the economic boom is particularly "hot" in the region - those who have found work, which pays sometimes extremely well - for understandable reasons 'look the other way' re earth destruction and risk. This is the same motivation that causes Americans who believe they may find employment if the XL Pipeline comes through their region to not want to ask too many questions.)
I equate what's happening in the tar sands develpment specifically with Chevron's destructiveness in the Amazon. We know there are similar spots all over the world, (Gulf Oil disaster, Niger Delta, Fukushima are several that come to mind), yet we continue to examine each as if it has only a localized effect. It's easy for us (me too) to neglect to consider the cumulative effect of our human earth-destructiveness.
The question to ask, of course, is "What does our natural resource exploitation activity - given our techniques and scope - mean for the next 7 generations?"
Thank you specifically, and KBOO generally, for your dedication in exploring important questions! Most sincerely, Maggie.
fracking, logging and mining in remote areas
<p>My comment that "nobody lived there" was meant to have quotations marks around it. I hoped by the tone of my voice to convey that I don't agree with that characterization of these areas that are suffering intense abuse from the resource extractors. Because they are perceived by many to be sparsely settled - and, as I mentioned Monday, they are home to First Nations peoples who are fighting to protect their homelands, but whose concerns are generally overlooked by the general public, governments and industry - I believe that a lot of outrageous exploitation continues in the northern reaches of Alberta and British Columbia. I never intended to convey the impression that these regions are "uninhabited." That was the same ploy used by Europeans to justify conquering North America centuries ago.</p>
Thank you ...
Thank you, Barbara, for taking time to reply. (I'm not surprised at all at the opinions/beliefs you describe, and heartily agree, including your reference to European colonialism!) Communication is sometimes confusing enough when face-to-face, and by audio and text often more so! In the same way that you meant "nobody lives there" to be taken as ironic, I meant to assure you I thought as much when I said that I knew you meant no disrespect!
I confess I possibly "took advantage of" the remark 'nobody lives there' to give me opening to launch one of my missives on Alberta's tar sand development. I'm deeply concerned and have posted similar missives elsewhere with hope to raise interest in just how massively devastating the project already is - with the obvious implication it can only get worse - much worse. It's my understanding that the region is located in one of the major migrating bird flyways for the entire continent, and that already migrating waterfowl have been lost due to landing on toxic holding ponds. Photos of the region are dreadful.
I've been disappointed that on the American side, opposition to the XL has emphasized CO2 emisssions and risk to state-side waters, without similar emphasis on the current devastation "on site" - the worst of which is the toxins involved. Limiting debate, to CO2 and risk to state-side waters, causes climate-warming deniers, and people desperate for employement, to both find the pipeline "worth the risk". I'd like for Americans, Canadians, and possibly international environmentalists, to demonstrate more interest in the tar sands project. My argument for international interest is centered in risk to oceans, (as well as for the obvious CO2 consequences - which have been stated in dire global consequence terms by scientists.) I've made some or all these points in assorted on-line posts.
As it happens, I'm not only intimately aware of the part of BC/Alberta that is one of Canada's current "resource extraction hot spots"; I'm also a native Kansan - where, as a farm child - I was taught to revere the Ogallala Aquifer, across which the XL Pipeline, if built, will run. My heart's quite caught up in the pipeline debate, which is possibly why I've taken it on as a 'pet' project, (one of too many in these 'humanity perched at the edge' times!)
I do mean it sincerely when I say thank you (and KBOO) for your work! I also appreciate opportunity to 'weigh in' via comments. I live in a fairly isolated region, am seldom able (so far 'never') to 'show up in person' for activist gatherings, and am not in a good situation for helping fund the many organizations that are so importantly dedicated. I post comments as a very modest contribution to the larger discourse, and do what I can in local community. I do understand, also, that no one can take on the entire package of current issues - so I don't expect others to 'jump to' issues that I point out. Still - I never know - perhaps someone who's not thought of the tar sands as an 'issue', and who would be disposed to become concerned and a bit active, just might catch one of my posts. And it may help - just a bit.
Thank you so much! Best Regards - Maggie.