Category Archives: Policy

WILDLIFE: Are wild horses native to the U.S.?

Posted on
2

Both images are via Jeffrey K. Edwards on Flickr and can be found here and here.


The Bureau of Land Management, or BLM, is being challenged on its view that wild horses aren’t native to the United States. The argument rests on biology and not history. It is being argued that the wild horses, currently roaming the West, are genetically the same horses that roamed the West thousands of years before. Therefore, proponents of this view argue that wild horses should be managed as native wildlife and not as “‘feral weeds’ [or] barnyard escapees.”  According to one advocate of this view, “‘The Spanish [merely brought] them home.’” More via the San Francisco Chronicle:

The group In Defense of Animals and others are pressing a case in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that maintains wild horses roamed the West about 1.5 million years ago and didn’t disappear until as recently as 7,600 years ago. More importantly, they say, a growing stockpile of DNA evidence shows conclusively that today’s horses are genetically linked to those ancient ancestors.

The new way of thinking could carry significant ramifications across hundreds millions of acres in the West where the U.S. Bureau of Land Management divides up livestock grazing allotments based partly on the belief the horses are no more native to those lands than are the cattle brought to North America centuries ago.

Rachel Fazio, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, told a three-judge appellate panel in San Francisco earlier this year that the horses are “an integral part of the environment.”

“As much as the BLM would like to see them as not, they are actually a native species. They are tied to this land,” she said. “There would not be a horse but for North America. Every single evolutionary iteration of the horse is found here and only here.”

Judge Mary Schroeder, former chief of the circuit, asked: “Just like polar bears?”

“Yes,” Fazio answered, “they belong there.”

.       .       .

“This isn’t about history, it’s about biology,’ Kirkpatrick said. “The Spanish were bringing them home.”

.       .       .

Kirkpatrick said Europe’s domestication of the horse over about 6,000 years may have changed the nuclear makeup of some genes but “it remains the same species and retains the same social organization and social behaviors that evolved over 1.4 million years.”

Continue reading this article at the San Francisco Chronicle. More on research that suggests wild horses should be managed as native wildlife via Jay F. Kirkpatrick, Ph.D. and Patricia M. Fazio, Ph.D. (emphasis added):

A study conducted at the Ancient Biomolecules Centre of Oxford University (Weinstock et al. 2005) also corroborates the conclusions of Forstén (1992). Despite a great deal of variability in the size of the Pleistocene equids from differing locations (mostly ecomorphotypes), the DNA evidence strongly suggests that all of the large and small caballine samples belonged to the same species. The author states, “The presence of a morphologically variable caballine species widely distributed both north and south of the North American ice sheets raises the tantalizing possibility that, in spite of many taxa named on morphological grounds, most or even all North American caballines were members of the same species.”

In another study, Kruger et al. (2005), using microsatellite data, confirms the work of Forstén (1992) but gives a wider range for the emergence of the caballoid horse, of 0.86 to 2.3 million years ago. At the latest, however, that still places the caballoid horse in North America 860,000 years ago. 5 The work of Hofreiter et al. (2001), examining the genetics of the so-called E. lambei from the permafrost of Alaska, found that the variation was within that of modern horses, which translates into E. lambei actually being E. caballus, genetically. The molecular biology evidence is incontrovertible and indisputable, but it is also supported by the interpretation of the fossil record, as well.

Finally, very recent work (Orlando et al. 2009) that examined the evolutionary history of a variety of non‐caballine equids across four continents, found evidence for taxonomic “oversplitting” from species to generic levels. This overspitting was based primarily on late‐Pleistocene fossil remains without the benefit of molecular data. A co‐author of this study, Dr. Alan Cooper, of the Australian Centre for Ancient DNA, stated, “Overall, the new genetic results suggest that we have underestimated how much a single species can vary over time and space, and mistakenly assumed more diversity among extinct species of megafauna.”

The fact that horses were domesticated before they were reintroduced matters little from a biological viewpoint. They are the same species that originated here, and whether or not they were domesticated is quite irrelevant. Domestication altered little biology, and we can see that in the phenomenon called “going wild,” where wild horses revert to ancient behavioral patterns. Feist and McCullough (1976) dubbed this “social conservation” in his paper on behavior patterns and communication in the Pryor Mountain wild horses. The reemergence of primitive behaviors, resembling those of the plains zebra, indicated to him the shallowness of domestication in horses.

The issue of feralization and the use of the word “feral” is a human construct that has little biological meaning except in transitory behavior, usually forced on the animal in some manner. Consider this parallel. E. Przewalskii (Mongolian wild horse) disappeared from Mongolia a hundred years ago. It has survived since then in zoos. That is not domestication in the classic sense, but it is captivity, with keepers providing food and veterinarians providing health care. Then they were released during the 1990s and now repopulate their native range in Mongolia. Are they a reintroduced native species or not? And what is the difference between them and E. caballus in North America, except for the time frame and degree of captivity?

The key element in describing an animal as a native species is (1) where it originated; and (2) whether or not it co‐evolved with its habitat. Clearly, E. caballus did both, here in North American. There might be arguments about “breeds,” but there are no scientific grounds for arguments about “species.”

The non‐native, feral, and exotic designations given by agencies are not merely reflections of their failure to understand modern science but also a reflection of their desire to preserve old ways of thinking to keep alive the conflict between a species (wild horses), with no economic value anymore (by law), and the economic value of commercial livestock.

Native status for wild horses would place these animals, under law, within a new category for management considerations. As a form of wildlife, embedded with wildness, ancient behavioral patterns, and the morphology and biology of a sensitive prey species, they may finally be released from the “livestock‐gone‐loose” appellation.

—
The author or licensor of these images does not endorse my work or me, and their image is protected under an attribution license.

FISHERIES: NOAA to require weak hooks to reduce the bycatch of large bluefin tuna in the Gulf of Mexico

Posted on
Reply

Images: The first image shows, via the United Nations’ Fisheries and Aquaculture Department, a tuna longline. A yellowfin tuna is caught on a weak hook in the second image. Larger species are excluded, because the hooks “straighten when a large fish, such as bluefin tuna, is hooked, releasing it but holding on to smaller fish.” The image is via Mike Carde. Via NOAA, some weak hooks, at various stages of bending, are shown in the third image. The fourth image, via izik on Flickr, illustrates some longline hooks from an Alaskan fishery.


In a fishery, which can mean many things, fishers target certain species for personal consumption or for market. However, sometimes, fishers catch other species in addition to the species that they’re targeting. These non-target species are known as bycatch, and even though bycatch might be illegal to keep, to consume, to target, or to market, bycatch may still be incidentally caught in some fisheries.

Therefore, if the fisher doesn’t have a permit to keep certain species or if the species is illegal to keep, it’s simply wastefully discarded overboard. Bycatch isn’t wasted, however, if a fisheries observer is onboard to scientifically sample the species or if the fishers keep the specimen to turnover to scientists for research. As a result, bycatch can yield valuable data about a species and its interaction with commercial fishing gear.

Nonetheless, bycatch is a serious problem in some fisheries — particularly in some commercial fisheries, where the ecological footprint can be significant. Bycatch might include other species of fish, undersized or juvenile target species, marine mammals, sea turtles, sea birds, or invertebrates. Fisheries with little or no bycatch and minimal impact to the environment are often called clean fisheries. For example, “environmental seafood guides produced by Audubon and the Monterey Bay Aquarium have cited the Albacore troll fishery as an example of a clean fishery with little bycatch or impact on the environment.”

Due to being incidentally caught, some species, in particular, are at risk. For example, populations of endangered species, valuable species, or species that are easily caught as bycatch in certain fisheries suffer from illegal fishing or from fisheries that are inefficient or dirty. However, fisheries research can result in improvements that mitigate or even eliminate bycatch of certain species (thus making the fishery cleaner), so cooperative research is important in ensuring continued seafood production and in making fisheries more sustainable.

Big, fat female fish, which have a higher fecundity, and therefore are important to sustaining certain fish stocks or populations, are vulnerable as bycatch in some fisheries. The loss of important breeding individuals is devastating to certain fish stocks or to certain populations of fish species. One such fishery, which is problematic for incidentally removing important breeding individuals, is the surface-longline fishery. However, conservationists, fishery managers, and scientists are working to improve the fishery by tweaking fishing gear or utilizing bycatch reduction devices. Starting May 5, 2011, for example, “NOAA’s Fisheries Service will require commercial fishermen who fish for yellowfin tuna, swordfish and other species with longlines in the Gulf of Mexico to use a new type of hook, called a weak hook, designed to reduce the incidental catch of Atlantic bluefin tuna.” More via NOAA:

Directed fishing for bluefin tuna in the Gulf has been prohibited since the early 1980s, however bluefin are caught incidentally by longline fishermen who target other species. The Gulf of Mexico is the only known spawning area for the western stock of Atlantic bluefin tuna, a historically overfished species. Many bluefin die from the stress endured in this incidental capture in warm water even if fishermen release them.

“NOAA worked with longline fishermen from the Gulf to test the weak hook carefully over the last three years,” said Eric Schwaab, assistant NOAA administrator for NOAA’s Fisheries Service. “Our cooperative scientific research with fishermen is showing that this new technology can protect bluefin tuna in the Gulf while still allowing fishermen to target yellowfin tuna and swordfish.”

The weak hook is a circular hook constructed of thin gauge wire, and is designed to straighten when a large fish, such as bluefin tuna, is hooked, releasing it but holding on to smaller fish. The average size of bluefin tuna landed in the Gulf of Mexico longline fishery is 485 pounds, while the average for yellowfin tuna is about 86 pounds.

Yellowfin tuna and swordfish are valuable commercial fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico, supporting fishing jobs on approximately 50 vessels as well as jobs on shore. The two species bring longline fishermen annual dockside earnings of $7 million. Research showed that the weak hook could result in some reductions in target catch while some longline fishermen have reported weak hooks did not hurt their businesses.

“During our tests, we used regular hooks for half our hooks and half were the new weak hooks,” said Capt. Mike Carden, a longline fisherman from Panama City, Fla. who took part in the cooperative research. “We were so happy with the weak hooks we quit using the heavy hooks. The weak hook releases fish we don’t want to catch. Because it’s smaller and lighter, we catch more yellowfin tuna on the weak hook. There’s several of us who have gone to the weak hook.”

And from Dot Earth:

Federal fisheries officials, after field studies and public debate, have issued a new rule requiring commercial fishing boats deploying long lines of fish hooks in the Gulf of Mexico to use “weak hooks” that hold smaller, abundant species like yellowfin tuna but, in theory, will allow  depleted Atlantic bluefin tuna and other rare large species to escape. Here’s background in a news release from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

.       .       .

The agency release included a supporting comment from a captain of one of the 50 or so commercial longline vessels in the fishery:

“During our tests, we used regular hooks for half our hooks and half were the new weak hooks,” said Capt. Mike Carden, a longline fisherman from Panama City, Fla., who took part in the cooperative research. “We were so happy with the weak hooks we quit using the heavy hooks. The weak hook releases fish we don’t want to catch. Because it’s smaller and lighter, we catch more yellowfin tuna on the weak hook. There’s several of us who have gone to the weak hook.”

The Pew Environmental Trusts, which has been tracking the issue closely, gave a very mixed review to the move. Here’s a statement e-mailed to me by Dave Bard, a spokesman, followed by a video the group has produced on bluefin and the gulf:

Pew is pleased that the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has recognized the major bycatch problem with bluefin tuna in the Gulf of Mexico, the fish’s only known spawning area in the western Atlantic Ocean. The agency has issued a short-term solution requiring the use of “weak” hooks starting May 5, 2011. Pew is also pleased that NMFS has left the door open to consider long-term solutions including time and area closures. But, a year-round prohibition on surface longlines is the only way to provide effective long-term protection for bluefin tuna and other rare and beautiful species in the Gulf. This prohibition would still allow fishermen in the Gulf to catch swordfish and yellowfin tuna; they would just be required to use more selective alternatives to wasteful surface longlines.

Here’s the video report:

You can continue reading more about this story at Dot Earth.

Online Resources:

  1. New Fishing Hooks Protect Bluefin Tuna in Gulf of Mexico But Allow Catch of Yellowfin Tuna and Swordfish
  2. Longline Gear Innovation
  3. Industrial Tuna Longlining
  4. WWF’s International Smart Gear Competition
  5. Stop Surface Longlining in the Gulf of Mexico
  6. Northeast Cooperative Fisheries Research
  7. Seafood Watch Program: A Consumer’s Guide to Sustainable Seafood

ENERGY POLICY: Germany wants to abandon nuclear power

Posted on
2

Image: According to Wikipedia, “Waldpolenz Solar Park, which is the world’s largest thin-film photovoltaic (PV) power system, was built . . . at a former military air base to the east of Leipzig in Germany. The power plant is a 40 MW solar power system using state-of-the-art thin film technology, and was fully operational by the end of 2008.” Image via Wikipedia.

It will be interesting to observe if Germany will totally abandon nuclear power, and if the world’s fourth-largest economy does abandon nuclear power, then it will be interesting to observe the period of time it took Germany to complete its shift from nuclear power to cleaner, safer, renewable energy sources. Germany can be a model for other countries, particularly the United States, and I am convinced that a large economy can actually abandon both fossil fuels and nuclear energy sources. I believe that energy conservation initiatives, solar energy, wind energy, and energy storage can together replace fossil fuels and nuclear power. What’s lacking, especially here in the United States, is the political will and agressive investment by the federal government into research and development of new technologies that can improve energy efficiency, energy output, and energy storage. More via The Seattle Times:

Germany is determined to show the world how abandoning nuclear energy can be done.

The world’s fourth-largest economy stands alone among leading industrialized nations in its decision to stop using nuclear energy because of its inherent risks. It is betting billions on expanding the use of renewable energy to meet power demands instead.

The transition was supposed to happen slowly over the next 25 years, but is now being accelerated in the wake of Japan’s Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear plant disaster, which Chancellor Angela Merkel has called a “catastrophe of apocalyptic dimensions.”

Berlin’s decision to take seven of its 17 reactors offline for three months for new safety checks has provided a glimpse into how Germany might wean itself from getting nearly a quarter of its power from atomic energy to none.

And experts say Germany’s phase-out provides a good map that countries such as the United States, which use a similar amount of nuclear power, could follow. The German model would not work, however, in countries like France, which relies on nuclear energy for more than 70 percent of its power and has no intention of shifting.

“If we had the winds of Texas or the sun of California, the task here would be even easier,” said Felix Matthes of Germany’s renowned Institute for Applied Ecology. “Given the great potential in the U.S., it would be feasible there in the long run too, even though it would necessitate huge infrastructure investments.”

Nuclear power has been very unpopular in Germany ever since radioactivity from the 1986 Chernobyl disaster drifted across the country. A center-left government a decade ago penned a plan to abandon the technology for good by 2021, but Merkel’s government last year amended it to extend the plants’ lifetime by an average of 12 years. That plan was put on hold after the March 11 earthquake and tsunami compromised nuclear power plants in Japan, and is being re-evaluated as the safety of all of Germany’s nuclear reactors is being rechecked.

Germany currently gets 23 percent of its energy from nuclear power – about as much as the U.S. Its ambitious plan to shut down its reactors will require at least euro150 billion ($210 billion) investment in alternative energy sources, which experts say will likely lead to higher electricity prices.

Germany now gets 17 percent of its electricity from renewable energies, 13 percent from natural gas and more than 40 percent from coal. The Environment Ministry says in 10 years renewable energy will contribute 40 percent of the country’s overall electricity production.

The government has been vague on a total price tag for the transition, but it said last year about euro20 billion ($28 billion) a year will be needed, acknowledging that euro75 billion ($107 billion) alone will be required through 2030 to install offshore wind farms.

The president of Germany’s Renewable Energy Association, Dietmar Schuetz, said the government should create a more favorable regulatory environment to help in bringing forward some euro150 billion investment in alternative energy sources this decade by businesses and homeowners.

Last year, German investment in renewable energy topped euro26 billion ($37 billion) and secured 370,000 jobs, the government said.

Continue reading this article at The Seattle Times.

POLITICS: Republicans attack policies and regulations that promote energy conservation, address environmental degradation, and protect the public’s health

Posted on
Reply

Republicans are using the state of the economy and the debate over the national debt to attack the EPA, to rollback environmental regulations, and to rollback policies that address overconsumption, pollution, and our addiction to oil. Republicans aren’t considering the best interests of the American people or the welfare of the public when they imprudently decide to attack policies that attempt to address issues threatening U.S. national security. Climate change, pollution, and our reliance on dwindling, dirty fossil fuels are all issues that the federal government must address to secure our future. Instead, the majority of Republicans don’t consider climate change, energy security, or environmental degradation as issues that must be addressed in order to preserve national security and to protect the public welfare. For example, House Representative Mike Simpson, a Republican from Idaho, “added language to the Continuing Resolution that would block any attempt by the Obama Administration to enforce rules under the Clean Water Act, undermining the EPA’s ability to administer these programs.” Another House Republican, Michele Bachmann, recently “introduced legislation that would eliminate federal light bulb standards passed in 2007 that are expected to have the effect of phasing out some incandescent bulbs in the next few years.” Republicans also want to defund the EPA, and Tea Party Republican Rand Paul recently blamed the Department of Energy for his toilet problems. Another Republican Tea Partier, Marco Rubio, a junior Senator from Florida, “hopes to use the budget debate happening now in the Senate to block new pollution controls for Florida waterways.” Since Republicans [are] reversing a series of in-house green initiatives undertaken by Democrats” at the U.S. Capitol, their regressive efforts aren’t limited to rolling back major U.S. environmental regulations. Given the GOP’s shenanigans, I’m baffled that they can even get elected into a majority.

On the Net & Resources:

  1. House Panel Approves Bill Stripping EPA’s Power to Regulate Greenhouse Gases
  2. House Subcommittee Moves To Block EPA Funding On Emissions
  3. Light bulbs in spotlight as senators lambaste US efficiency standards
  4. Rand Paul Blames Energy Department for Faulty Toilets, Among Other Things
  5. House Republicans Open a Major Budget Battle, Proposing Deep Cuts Into Energy, Environment and Climate Spending

ENERGY & THE ENVIRONMENT: Oscar-nominated documentary highlights the drawbacks to natural-gas drilling

Posted on
Reply

Gasland, a documentary that tackles the environmental side effects associated with drilling for natural gas, is up for an Oscar for the best documentary feature at the Academy Awards ceremony tomorrow. Not surprisingly, the fossil-fuel industry attacked the claims that are made in the documentary. However, given the history of environmental litigation that’s associated with fossil-fuel companies and their wrongdoings, the efforts of fossil-fuel companies to circumvent and stifle environmental regulations, and the known environmental crimes that have been committed against the human environment by the fossil-fuel industry, I believe that claims made by the fossil-fuel industry should be taken with a grain of salt. Here is a review of Gasland via Scientific American (a comprehensive review of claims made in Gasland can be found at Greenwire):

Scientific American got its hands on a pre-release copy of the film months before it aired on HBO, and the movie convinced me to write a feature article investigating the claims of fracking critics and promoters. After doing my own research and interviews, it became apparent that, like most documentaries, Gasland revealed surprising facts, amplified a few, and chose to gloss over a couple others. What writer and producer Josh Fox did achieve, regardless, was to blow the lid off the secrecy that kept most local residents, not to mention scientists and regulators, in the dark about the chemicals used in fracking and their possible effects. And he certainly put me on the reporting trail.

You can see a trailer here. And do your own handicapping of Gasland‘s competitors for the Oscar.

And from New Scientist:

[Josh Fox] spends a lot of time on three Colorado households who can all set their water on fire. All three cases were investigated by Colorado’s Department of Natural Resources, and while one was indeed traced to fracking, the other two apparently have nothing to do with it. One homeowner had inadvertently drilled his well through four coal beds, which contained natural gas.

Indeed, the film is at the centre of a row over its supposed inaccuracies. An organisation called Energy in Depth (EiD) has produced a lengthy list of criticisms. But it is worth noting that EiD is funded by a host of major oil and gas companies, and that Fox has produced an equally lengthy rebuttal of their comments.

Regardless of the arguments, will Gasland take home the Oscar? It seems unlikely that arguments about its accuracy will sway the Academy much. But for the record, my money’s on Banksy.

More via the Connecticut Post:

“Gasland” is up for best documentary at Sunday’s Academy Awards ceremony. Director Josh Fox’s dark portrayal of greedy energy companies, sickened homeowners and oblivious regulators has stirred heated debate among the various stakeholders in a natural gas boom that is sweeping parts of the U.S. The film has galvanized anti-drilling activists while drawing complaints about its accuracy and objectivity.

In a letter to the academy, Lee Fuller, the executive director of an industry-sponsored group named Energy In Depth, called “Gasland” an “expression of stylized fiction” with “errors, inconsistencies and outright falsehoods.”

He asked the academy to consider “remedial actions” against the film.

Davis, the executive director, wrote to Fuller that if the academy were to act on every complaint made about a nominated film, “it would not be possible even to have a documentary category.” He said the academy must “trust the intelligence of our members” to sort out fact from fiction.

.       .       .

Fox said the industry’s campaign against “Gasland” has backfired.

“What they’re doing is calling more attention to the film, so I think it works against them,” the director said from Los Angeles. “But I think it shows how aggressive they are, how bullying they are, and how willing they are to lie to promote the falsehood that it’s OK to live in a gas drilling area.”

The documentary category is no stranger to controversy. Michael Moore films like “Bowling for Columbine” and “Sicko,” as well as Al Gore’s 2006 global-warming tale, “An Inconvenient Truth,” have likewise been attacked as biased and inaccurate.

Interestingly, it appears that a quote from a fossil-fuel industry spokesman in a Wall Street Journal article by Ben Casselman was removed, because the quote was critical of the energy sector’s practices of removing minerals from the earth (see the screenshot at right for a copy of the original article that contains the missing quote). The quote that was removed stated, “We have to stop blaming documentaries and take a look in the mirror.” More via Alison Rose Levy for The Huffington Post:

When the article was published on Friday night, it was the first time an industry spokesperson deployed a shift in strategy from the industry’s standard denials and repeated assertions that fracking is safe, despite the numerous reports of problems, such as flammable water, contamination of drinking water, trucks leaking toxic and radioactive waste-water on public highways, the pollution of streams, as well as fires, and explosions in which people have been injured.

“We have to stop blaming documentaries and take a look in the mirror,” Matt Pitzarella, a spokesman for gas producer Range Resources Corp., was quoted as saying in WSJ.

However, if you go to the article, you won’t find Pitzarella’s statement because within the hour the quote disappeared, say citizen journalists, who screen captured it and posted it on Twitter. Gasland director Fox, in Los Angeles, awaiting Sunday night’s Oscar ceremony, has the screen shot of the original version. He also has questions:

“Why did this key quote disappear from the article? Why did the WSJ censor its own piece ? Does the Gas industry get to edit the Wall Street Journal?” Fox wondered. “Who pulled the quote?”

It’s more innocuous replacement from Tom Price, a Chesapeake Vice-President reads, “We need to be able to respond objectively and accurately.”

.       .       .

Although it’s unknown who ordered the yanking of the quote published in the Wall Street Journal, the appearance of censorship, whatever its source, does little to restore public confidence in either the industry reported on, or the media outlet doing the reporting.

Meanwhile citizens are rooting for Gasland to win the Oscar Sunday night at nationwide Gasland parties, and by writing letters to President Obama, asking for a nation-wide moratorium on fracking and safety studies. To learn more and participate, go here.

Despite what you believe about Gasland, here are some facts and observations about hydrofracking that are a cause for concern: (1) the evidence for groundwater contamination from hydrofracking is compelling; (2) the industry maintains that the complete list of chemicals used in hydrofracking are proprietary property, so the industry maintains that they shouldn’t be required to disclose their fracking recipes to government regulators or to the public; (3) in addition to a plethora of toxic chemicals, ”drilling service companies have injected at least 32 million gallons of diesel fuel underground“; (4) like the production of corn ethanol, the energy input associated with hydrofracking might be excessively high and perhaps disproportionate to the actual energy returns that might be derived from the natural gas that’s actually extracted from the ground; (5) animals and people have become sick in areas where hydrofracking is conducted; and (6) hydrofracking is exempt from some major environmental regulations.

Given the large amount of water that must be used and transported during the hydrofracking process (“fracing a typical Chesapeake horizontal deep shale gas well requires an average of 4.5 million gallons per well“), the large amounts of chemicals that must be produced and used in hydrofracking, and the large amount of diesel fuel that is used in hydrofracking, I’m interested in seeing data that compares the energy input that’s required to extract natural gas during the hydrofracking process against the actual energy that’s extracted from the ground in the form of natural gas. Considering the likely high costs to the human environment and to human health, it seems to me, that if the energy return is slight or even in the negative, then why do politicians allow natural-gas drilling in such an extreme and gross negligent manner without reasonable precautions to protect the environment. Of course, the answer is money in the form of profits and subsidies. However, the price paid to land owners and the price paid for natural gas by consumers vastly undervalues and ignores the human and environmental impacts that occur during and after the drilling process.

Another problem with hydrofracking is wastewater treatment. Wastewater contains carcinogens and radioactive elements, and since “radioactivity in drilling waste cannot be fully diluted in rivers and other waterways,” it appears that wastewater from hydrofracking is a threat to drinking water supplies and to public health. Via the New York Times (emphasis added):

With hydrofracking, a well can produce over a million gallons of wastewater that is often laced with highly corrosive salts, carcinogens like benzene and radioactive elements like radium, all of which can occur naturally thousands of feet underground. Other carcinogenic materials can be added to the wastewater by the chemicals used in the hydrofracking itself.

While the existence of the toxic wastes has been reported, thousands of internal documents obtained by The New York Times from the Environmental Protection Agency, state regulators and drillers show that the dangers to the environment and health are greater than previously understood.

The documents reveal that the wastewater, which is sometimes hauled to sewage plants not designed to treat it and then discharged into rivers that supply drinking water, contains radioactivity at levels higher than previously known, and far higher than the level that federal regulators say is safe for these treatment plants to handle.

Other documents and interviews show that many E.P.A. scientists are alarmed, warning that the drilling waste is a threat to drinking water in Pennsylvania. Their concern is based partly on a 2009 study, never made public, written by an E.P.A. consultant who concluded that some sewage treatment plants were incapable of removing certain drilling waste contaminants and were probably violating the law.

The Times also found never-reported studies by the E.P.A. and a confidential study by the drilling industry that all concluded that radioactivity in drilling waste cannot be fully diluted in rivers and other waterways.

But the E.P.A. has not intervened. In fact, federal and state regulators are allowing most sewage treatment plants that accept drilling waste not to test for radioactivity. And most drinking-water intake plants downstream from those sewage treatment plants in Pennsylvania, with the blessing of regulators, have not tested for radioactivity since before 2006, even though the drilling boom began in 2008.

In other words, there is no way of guaranteeing that the drinking water taken in by all these plants is safe.

That has experts worried.

“We’re burning the furniture to heat the house,” said John H. Quigley, who left last month as secretary of Pennsylvania’s Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. “In shifting away from coal and toward natural gas, we’re trying for cleaner air, but we’re producing massive amounts of toxic wastewater with salts and naturally occurring radioactive materials, and it’s not clear we have a plan for properly handling this waste.”

On the Net & Resources:

  1. A bill to amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to repeal a certain exemption for hydraulic fracturing
  2. Controversy behind an Oscar-nominated documentary
  3. Did the Gas Industry Censor the Wall Street Journal?
  4. Documentaries could give green tinge to the Oscars
  5. The Drillers Are Coming: Debate over Hydraulic Fracturing Heats Up
  6. Fort Worth Democrat’s bill would require ‘tracer’ in drilling water
  7. Gas Drilling Technique Is Labeled Violation
  8. Groundtruthing Academy Award Nominee ‘Gasland’
  9. Industry tried to get doc disqualified from Oscars
  10. List of 78 Chemicals Used in Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid in Pennsylvania
  11. Natural Gas Industry Rhetoric Versus Reality
  12. Sparks Fly Over ‘Gasland’ Drilling Documentary
  13. Wall Street Journal Caves to Industry Pressure on Gasland