Streams

Alec Baldwin & RFK Jr. on Fracking

Wednesday, May 09, 2012

Alec Baldwin and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (WNYC/Paige Cowett)

Alec Baldwin, actor and host of Here's the Thing podcast, and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., environmental attorney, host of "Ring of Fire" radio show and podcast, and president of the Waterkeeper Alliance board, continue the debate over hydraulic fracturing upstate.

EVENT: Alec Baldwin will hosts a screening of "Gasland" at the Landmark Theatre in Syracuse on Saturday, June 2, 2012. 

Guests:

Alec Baldwin and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

The Morning Brief

Enter your email address and we’ll send you our top 5 stories every day, plus breaking news and weather.

Comments [50]

Marylyn Eichenholtz from Westchester

I attended a Town Hall meeting a few months ago where Senator Greg Ball spoke about fracking.It is my understanding that for now;the drilling companies are only approaching privately owned landowners for drilling rights.Unfortunately,many homeowners in upstate New York,have little income due to the depressed economy in those locations and the drilling companies promise big$$$rewards if they sign on the dotted lines.The sad part is the landowners give them permission to dig wells but are not financially compensated until actual drilling is started.The landowners have no guarantee when that will take place and it could be months or years down the road.I am totally anti fracking for many reasons.I own 40 acres upstate as well as a weekend home and will NEVER sign over my property to these lying parasites for drilling.

Jul. 11 2012 12:07 PM
Marylyn Eichenholtz

I attended a Town Hall meeting a few months ago where Senator Greg Ball spoke about fracking.It is my understanding that for now;the drilling companies are only approaching privately owned landowners for drilling rights.Unfortunately,many homeowners in upstate New York,have little income due to the depressed economy in those locations and the drilling companies promise big$$$rewards if they sign on the dotted lines.The sad part is the landowners give them permission to dig wells but are not financially compensated until actual drilling is started.The landowners have no guarantee when that will take place and it could be months or years down the road.I am totally anti fracking for many reasons.I own 40 acres upstate as well as a weekend home and will NEVER sign over my property to these lying parasites for drilling.

Jul. 11 2012 12:03 PM
barb from Montclair NJ

Kennedy's explanation that a fracking ban wouldn't work because it could legally be considered "takings" was surprising news to me, so I've been asking lawyers who work on "takings" for several days if this would be a legitimate concern. They all laughed at me and said "no way" -- "Governmental regulation is not a 'taking' if it limits or prohibits the* most profitable use* of the land, in this case fracking. As a 'bright-line rule' you only have a 'taking' issue if *all reasonable use* of the land is devoided."

(that being said, I thought this was an informative piece on fracking... and to answer Charlie from Tenafly, it's easy to find through search that Kennedy has spasmodic dysphonia, a rare laryngeal disorder)

May. 11 2012 12:59 PM
linda turillo from university

Gross. Both Kennedy and Baldwin support 'safe fracking'. Good thing the grassroots knows better:

http://gasmain.org/resources.htm#A%20Grassroots%20Perspective

May. 10 2012 12:26 PM
Liz R. from SE Pennsylvania

The influx of temporary and new workers has created a rental housing crisis in Central PA. KeepTapWaterSafe.org

May. 10 2012 10:59 AM
Dona Syman from Cooperstown, NY

Of course I would like to thank Alec Baldwin and Robert Kennedy Jr. for their work to explore and educate on the impact of fracking, BUT there was no mention of the benefits of solar energy! The sun is present everyday to remind us that it is available! Think of that! What I have recently learned is that buildings take up a lot of energy, and we can be self sustainable right there in our own homes. Not only that but we can solar power our cars. Why has the natural gas company been allowed to do so much damage already throughout the country, BEFORE solar was really explored and tried! This is a crime against the environment and the people of this country! And, no one here today addressed the high volumne of clean water that is needed for the fracking process. We hear that water will be scarce in the future! Come on we can't live without water! What about the scientist who look for life on other planets? What do they tell us? They haven't found LIFE on other planets because there is no detectable water to sustain life! Leave our water alone Chesapeake Energy and all of the rest of you criminals. IS THIS ONLY ABOUT MONEY GOVERNOR CUOMO? I don't think so! The people have done their homework, and we won't stand for it. We elected you, we can fire you! Dona Syman 13326

May. 10 2012 06:01 AM
NY Energy from NYS

How can anyone take these two guests seriously? They are pathetically misinformed.

May. 09 2012 09:47 PM
hick from the sticks

A "Modest Proposal" to jgarbuz from Queens...

How about we level all the major world cities and all the people in them. Then all us rural hicks will finally have the good life and can hoard all the resources to ourselves!

May. 09 2012 12:13 PM
Kelli from Queens

Alec and Bobby pointed out the real problem with fracking - who will be held accountable for the problems that come later? The big money companies will protect themselves against any fallout by any means possible. Changing names, taking money then later claiming bankruptcy. They have already been successful in forcing laws that will limit liability and allow the industry to monitor themselves.

I don't agree with Governor Cuomo that land owners can sue the State - really? Pass a law right now to prevent that. In PA home are being sold on the condition that the original owner keeps future mineral rights. Why would anyone buy a home? Invest and create a home for your family but then your backyard becomes a construction site with chemicals coming in daily. Who will want to buy any home in an area where fracking is a possibilty. (Just about all of Westmorleand County in PA)

Who will pay for the fall out later? Who has paid for the fall out from Coal Mines? From Oil Wells (Alaska oil spill?) Who will be responsible for any contamination wells that leak 20 years from now? Who will be responsible for the earthquake that will hit your home 20 years from now?

Mr. Baldwin if you can answer these questions then we beg you to do this full-time please. Everyone knows when there are millions upon millions to be made companies will protect themselves and their own dollar before everything else. And if they have stockholders to answer to you can forget any community driven efforts.

No matter what answers you come up with the little guy (average Joe) will lose. Joe will never be compensated for any future health problems, property damage, small businesses that are encouraged to open then fail, and especially problems that arise 20-40 years down the line.

If states are going to regulate fracking then NY should put a five year wait (or more) on fracking and monitor how the industry conducts itself. There is no immediate need to conduct the fracking - NY State won't miss out. And the landowners that threaten to sue are the same type of citizens that would scream for help and threaten to sue when they have a problem. How would these landowners feel if no one would want to buy a home in their area because of the complicated legal mess that will certainly follow?

There are no differences between coal and fracking. The same problems will occur. Shaving off mountains for coal changes wind currents and tornadoes are occurring in areas where they never did before. Well earthquakes and tremors are now happening in Ohio because Pennsylvania is sending their contaminated water to Ohio.

Accountability and Transparency are needed. And hold everyone accountable that promotes, provides scientific data, and even politicians. And this will never happen.

May. 09 2012 11:31 AM
CMN from Morris County, NJ

Two major issues: to reduce use of fossil fuels and the terrible waste of fresh water. For the 5000 wells in PA, thus far, an average of 4 million gallons of water was used per well. That's 20 billion gallons of water wasted, contaminated with toxic fracking chemicals and geologic compounds. About half of that water stays in the well and half comes up with the gas and needs safe disposal. Decontaminating this water is not possible at reasonable cost.

To get a handle on 20 billion gallons of water: suppose you could drink 1 gallon EVERY SECOND. It would take you over 634 YEARS to finish 20 billion gallons. If you slow down to 1 gallon per minute, it takes 38,000 years!

May. 09 2012 11:24 AM
Charlie N. from Essex County, NJ

Dr. Anthony Ingraffea's presentation on the problems of fracking pointed out that drilling has always had the problem of cement sealing failures. New wells have a 6% failure rate and failures increase with age of the well. Cement does not adhere reliablly to the rock structure; it doesn't matter how many steel casings are used; there is always an outer casing. Micro cracks allow gas and fracking fluids to migrate from whatever depth there is a failure. Additionally, vertical bores of up to 10,000 feet often go through strata that also have gas which puts pressure on the liquid cement causing a void and seal failure. This gas can then migrate.

The industry claim that cement failure is to blame rather than fracking itself is so silly. It's like saying it wasn't the Titanic's design that was at fault, it was that nasty iceberg!

May. 09 2012 11:13 AM
Matt at Energy Vision from New York City

As alluded to by Mr. Kennedy, natural gas as an energy source is far superior to both coal and petroleum in looking at greenhouse gas emissions, particulate matter, toxins, etc. Unfortunately, the current extraction methods to tap into this vast resource trapped in deep shale deposits - fracking - has not been proven safe and should not be permitted until it is and the industry is completely transparent and regulated.

However, it should be noted that there IS another completely renewable, sustainable alternative to fossil natural gas: biomethane - produced from the breakdown of our organic wastes. The technology to produce biomethane is commercially viable TODAY.

New York State is superbly positioned to reap the benefits of this clean fuel, since it has bountiful feedstocks for producing it. It has the fourth largest dairy herd in the nation. It has a $3 billion/year food processing industry. It has wastes in its 27 largest landfills, and at its over six hundred sewage treatment facilities. Municipalities and cities could generate fuel from their wastes and, at the same time, reduce their waste disposal costs. In the State’s most populous urban center, New York City, it costs a whopping $325 million a year to send municipal wastes to out-of-state landfills – wastes that contain sufficient organics to produce biomethane (also called renewable natural gas) that could power thousands of heavy duty buses and trucks for two decades or more. New York City, in short, is spending $325 million a year in taxpayers money to export a virtual “gas well.” The other smaller cities in the State, most of which are suffering from these tough economic times, are also paying scarce dollars to get rid of their municipal wastes – wastes that they
could be turning into a secure fuel and one that is much less costly than diesel fuel.

New York State can create permanent jobs and lead the way toward a green energy economy by tapping into our vast organic waste resource. Not to mention, it would provide a clean, renewable alternative to fracking!

May. 09 2012 11:12 AM
Jeff Park Slope

Maybe geologists could shed some light on this. Maybe you could discuss tradeoffs and what happens when energy is very expensive or not available or if you want to be ambitious, how using all electric vehicles w/o nuclear energy to fuel the batteries is asinine (first law of thermodynamics I think)? Or you could continue to use actors to explain complex scientific and economic issues. Only wealthy societies focus on the environment because only wealthy societies have that luxury. Maybe you could report on that? How clean is China, how clean was East Germany or other Soviet based cities? As energy costs increase, wealth decreases. Potential problem, no?

May. 09 2012 11:04 AM
erica

Ultimately, more study needs to be done, something that both industry and environmentalists should want (knowledge is power and all that). It is possible that, once the data are in (which they are certainly not at this point but they are slowly trickling in), fracking could maybe, possibly be safe. We don't know, and we need to before we leap into it full-throttle.

The potential problems with fracking are multifaceted. Duke researchers have started looking into some of these, and the dean of Duke's Nicholas School of the Environment has been covering the topic for quite a while now. His take? As he wrote on National Geographic's Great Energy Challenge blog:

"Is fracking fluid really bad news? Maybe, maybe not. A lot of the chemicals are harmless — instant coffee and walnut hulls, for example (yum!). But others are not so benign. Among the hundreds of chemicals used in the thousands of different formulations, 29 are either “known or possible human carcinogens, regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act for their risks to human health, or listed as hazardous air pollutants under the Clean Air Act” [pdf].
Even so, many argue that the stuff may not be that bad — the fluid is injected well below the surface and unlikely to migrate to aquifers and surface water. They may have a point. A recent study by a Duke team — with an admittedly large caveat because it “did not test comprehensively for organics or other potential additives in fracking fluids” — found no evidence of fracking fluids in drinking water near well sites — although they did find methane contamination. The Environmental Protection Agency, however, as reported in the New York Times, has investigated at least one documented case of fracking fluid contamination. 
Whatever problem fracking fluid might have posed in the past may become moot, as gas-drilling companies become more transparent and clean up their act. But even Halliburton's newly formulated not-quite-"edible"-but-apparently-safe-to-drink fracking fluid doesn’t mean that all is hunky-dory in fracking water land. Why? Because there's also flowback water and produced water."

Read more about flowback water and produced water (which is what the caller referred to when she talked about sending water to Ohio to be pumped underground): http://www.nicholas.duke.edu/thegreengrok/frackingwater

May. 09 2012 11:03 AM
John from Westchester

What hasn't been mentioned yet is the existence of radon gas within the natural gas extracted via fracking - and the half-life of 3-4 days to several weeks (depending of the isotope)required for radon to decay. With a transit time of hours/days from well to consumer market, every gas stove in NYC will be a potential source of cancer-causing radioactivity. Breathe deep.

May. 09 2012 11:00 AM
David from Rockland

1. Alec Baldwin is a blowhard who does not belong on WMYC.
2. There are recycling trucks running around every community in the country spewing diesel for no good reason.
3. No mention of all of us who benefit from cheap gas. Kennedy's and baldwins have no problem with their monthly heat bill.

May. 09 2012 11:00 AM

Thanks, guys!

May. 09 2012 10:59 AM
Thomas from Cold Spring, NY

As we look for future sources for energy, it seems counterproductive to be implementing a process which is so water intensive. Beyond possible / inevitable contamination from fracking, water issues overall are growing to be the one of the great challenges of the future. The massive amount of water used / polluted to actually fracture should by no means be overlooked as an incredible waste of our natural resources.

May. 09 2012 10:56 AM

Ah, C'MON!!!

The petrochemical industry ALWAYS behaves responsibly...just look at the Gulf of Mexico!!

May. 09 2012 10:56 AM
Amy from Manhattan

Again, I recommend Scientific American's October article "The Truth About Fracking," (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-truth-about-fracking).

May. 09 2012 10:56 AM
jgarbuz from Queens

Whatever damage responsible fracking may do, it is zip, nada compared to the damage that has been done over the last century and a half of using timber, coal and oil as our primary energy sources. How many people have died and how much environment has been gravely damaged and destroyed by coal mining and oil drilling over the last 100 or more years? There is no comparison whatsoever. It is really a tempest in a teacup.

May. 09 2012 10:56 AM
Charlie from Tenafly NJ

A little off the main topic but ... is RFK Jr okay? He sounds pretty frail and uneven. Does anyone know the story here?

May. 09 2012 10:56 AM
Phyllis from Park Slope

The hydro-fracking is a calamity beyond the horrors of the Gulf coast catastrophe...REALLY, it is! If this happens upstate and compromises our water supply, it's over.

My husband is from Scranton. We just celebrated our 30th anniversary together and decided to go back to the same guest house we stayed in for our short honeymoon, in Towanda.
We stayed there quite often in the 1980's; my husband loves the Endless Mountains.

• We were stunned by the intense traffic all day and all night. Huge, noisy trucks barreling down historic roads...we couldn't believe it. It used to be so quiet! I couldn't sleep a wink! It was beyond imagination how loud it was hour after hour, on what we imagined would be a sleepy weekend morning.
• We were behind a large white truck with some sort of company designation that we had seen all over the area with Maryland plates who threw trash out of the window near Wyalusing.
• We spoke to antique dealers in Springville whose awning was badly damaged and whose display of furniture in front of the store had been damaged as well. It was Sunday morning when we visited the shop...about 12:00 at the latest...what should have been a sleepy time, and yet gigantic trucks were careening down the hill facing the shop and making a very scary turn down the road next to the shop. She said that the operations are 24/7. There is no peace of mind for people living near the roads.
• We stopped at several of the scenic lookouts and were stunned to see the drilling operations right next to silos. We saw cows grazing right next to these operations on Route 11.
• The air in Towanda was foul. The guest house owner said that the water pipes exploded in the home of one woman in Towanda. The signs leading into Towanda about D.U.I. driving and speeding are very scary. There was at least one serious accident in which someone died. There is so much traffic now that there are HUGE traffic jams in what was once a sleepy, tranquil area.

It seems that even if you are personally opposed to allowing the drilling, you have NO control over the flow through the pipes and you are subjected to the same noise and air pollution as those who are raking in lots of money. The landscape is despoiled. The air quality is despoiled.

This is BOLTING us into action in New York to make sure that this can never happen here. I wish we had been aware of it before now.

Phyllis

May. 09 2012 10:55 AM
Jessie Henshaw from way uptown

Finally!

I've been pointing out the ENORMOUS DIFFERENCE between environmental assessment and impact 'measurement' for decades. The difference is that you SEE the cost of ever growing resource use not as business choice, but as ever growing environmental change.

The ultimate problem with growth is that everything has to absorb ever more change, and all along we though growth had "acceptable impacts" because it turns out they were small enough to hide, and occurring "somewhere else" for "someone else". When "the earth is full" there's no place to hide the ever growing environmental impacts...

I have a great deal of knowledge on how to do true environmental assessment, in case anyone is interested. synapse9.com/signals

May. 09 2012 10:54 AM
Tony from Manhattan

2 more questions:

1. why are the companies so adamant about non-dosclosure? they claim trade secrets - is exxon really worried that chevron will steal their secret fracking-fluid formula? why do they want to prevent doctors from sharing information with each other and with their patients, as in Pennsylvania?

2. what about after the wells are done - are we stuck with 46,000 abandoned wells decaying in our beautiful upstate countryside forever? this looks like our worst visions of the future.

May. 09 2012 10:54 AM

YA VOUL!! Commandant jaggetbutzz!!!

We'll move all those ignorant country folk to the city ASAP!!

May. 09 2012 10:53 AM
Bill from New Rochelle

Milton from Queens, where will you be a million years from now?

The poison, whose creation you think is so safe will still be poison; and will possibly kill billions, of who knows what sort of organisms that will follow us.

I'm not as confidant as you that once we die, nothing else that happens to the Earth matters.

May. 09 2012 10:52 AM
Tony from UWS

Please listen to the "This American Life" episode called, GAME CHANGER, about fracking. Aside from the obvious physical damage to the environment, the companies' attorneys caused terrible social damage to the people of the town.

May. 09 2012 10:51 AM
john from office

Brian, so ask them what do they support?? All forms of energy require some kind of polution, even solar, the panels are plastic. So do we just turn of the lights?

May. 09 2012 10:51 AM
mercedes from westchester

The organic farming industry in that part of new york has struggled for years (it's expensive and hard to keep something organic) and have survived (actually are beginning to succeed) despite the big money that many large agribusiness have spent with politicians and publicity against organic foods. It's time that organic farming had support from our government and not the bigger andoften polluted business.

The small farms have supported not only New York, but their local areas. And oh, keeping a farm organic is not a money-making propostion. You just get buy so that you can gro next year. And yes, enforcement and regulation is expensive, but small organic farmers have paid their price and will continue to do so for the rest of their lives. Let's find another way to do business AND if the fracking is going to be as big as it states, they can afford rules and regulations. Ah, their profits might not be as great (as they aren't for the small farmers), but they should be participating in the fiscal health of our state as well.

May. 09 2012 10:50 AM
MrD from NYC

Really Brian? Does Alec Baldwin actually dictate your programming now? I can understand (and enjoy) having Kennedy on since he's been heavily involved on environmental issues, but Baldwin brings nothing to the conversation. If it was his suggestion, to have Kennedy on, great. But to let Baldwin walk on at his own pleasure simply reinforces the worst stereotypes of public radio.

May. 09 2012 10:49 AM
barbara from New York City

Please comment on the short staffing in the monitoring agency!! cut backs and more cut backs, when Environment is under attack. Fracking will make staffing an emergency, i.e., if compliance for human safety is a human value in the Cuomo administration.

May. 09 2012 10:49 AM
anne from manhattan

Would someone talk about the Ohio earthquakes attributed to fracking?

May. 09 2012 10:48 AM
jgarbuz from Queens

Solar power is the safest and cleanest and greenest energy source there is, however until then we need an intermediary source of affordable energy, and natural gas is the best choice we've got if we want to get off coal and oil. Many of those rural communities shouldn't even be there. They should move to the big cities. Fracking can be done relatively safely, but nothing is perfect. The whole country cannot be held hostage because of a handful who might be slightly adversely affected. That's my opinion anyway.

May. 09 2012 10:46 AM
Larry Loewinger from Glen Spey, New York

We know that the Obama administration just issued a directive saying that the gas companies have to release a list of the chemicals they inject into the ground 30 days after the actual injections. That seems like a pretty ineffectual directive. What's New York State's policy regarding this issue?

May. 09 2012 10:45 AM
Brandon from Jersey City

If not coal and not gas, then what energy sources do your guests support?

May. 09 2012 10:45 AM
Bob from Huntington

Of course fracking will create jobs!

The environmental damage will require thousands of people to clean up the mess and address all consequences to the health of local residents!

May. 09 2012 10:44 AM
Milton from Queens

As it happens Nuclear power is the safest and cleanest form of energy production we have.

May. 09 2012 10:40 AM
Drdave from Les

Will the CEO of mobile exon drink one cup of Frakking fluid?

May. 09 2012 10:40 AM
William from Manhattan

Thank you, Alec Baldwin. I've been waiting for this discussion to happen on WNYC.

May. 09 2012 10:40 AM
John from NYC

Hmmm. Robert Kennedy Jr questions fracking in NY, but promotes oil from Venezuela. Has he vetted the environmental impact of Venezuela oil? Or is that ok, since it comes from a leftist dictator?

May. 09 2012 10:37 AM
Fishmael from NYC

Please ask your guests: if fracking is permitted in NY, what specific disclosure requirements will there be for companies in identifying what the chemicals being used are? I've heard that in other states there has been discussion of having them disclose this only *after* the drilling has been done... which makes little sense.

By the way, I think it's lunacy, and should be banned. NY should take the lead again on the environment - the state of the Adirondack Park and "forever wild", plus, our water supply in the Catskills!

Thanks

May. 09 2012 10:35 AM
Bill from New Rochelle

FRAC with liquid OXYGEN and a spark-plug.
NO poison, secret chemicals in NYS groundwater, please.

Some process for removing gas from local well water should be part of any approval.

Gas, in the big picture, should replace oil & coal, not suppliment them. Gas is cleaner, lower in carbon, and should be our short-term future.

May. 09 2012 10:35 AM
dr dave from LES

Question for Mr. Baldwin.

Why is the burden on the public to prove that Fracking is safe to humans and animals.

When morally and legally the total burden ought to be on the Corporations to prove....scientifically and legally in court....that is is completely safe to humans and animals. Much like a new medication.

PS - even a 1% poison rate would harm millions of Americans.

May. 09 2012 10:28 AM
Richard Levine

Richard, Brooklyn
Aside from the potential for environmental catastrophe, isn't there a huge misrepresentation about the amount of gas actually available?

For example, geologists assess a deposit of energy in two ways: resource and reserve.

A “resource” is the estimated energy in a particular deposit, without consideration of technical ability to retrieve it or its market value. When the industry talks about “100 years of domestic energy” which President Obama quoted in his State of the Union Speech, he was referring to resource.

A “reserve” is the estimated energy in a particular deposit, that is accessible right now with current technology and a favorable market rate. The reserve amount of that “100 years of domestic energy” is about 16 years. In terms of the Marcellus, the often quoted 30+ years of energy is a resource figure; the reserve is about six years.

May. 09 2012 10:22 AM
Susan from NYC

Every unbiased (read non-industry) scientific study has found problems with water quality, air pollution, toxic waste, and road and community destruction, and even earthquakes with fracking. No one has proved it safe. The gas has been there for 400 million years--it can wait a while until it is absolutely safe. Remember when nuclear was declared safe, clean, and so cheap we would have unmetered electricity? (That was before Chernobyl, before Three Mile Island, before Fukushima.) Now Cuomo wants to shut down the Indian Point nuclear power plant while foisting on us an environmental and health disaster of far greater potential. We say NO!!!

May. 09 2012 10:15 AM
lj from upstate

So fracking is dangerous enough to outlaw in the New York City and Syracuse watersheds, but my kids are so worthless that they are considered expendable in a life-long toxic chemical experiment with substances so poisonous the companies won't even say what they are. Please tell us how many pieces of silver Gov. Cuomo got to betray us.

May. 09 2012 10:12 AM
john from office

I thought Mr. Baldwin moved to Cananda after the Bush election as promised?? what happened?

May. 09 2012 10:05 AM
Lisa Aurello from Southeast, NY

As a resident of Putnam County, an officer of the Putnam County Coalition to Preserve Open Space, and most importantly, perhaps, a lifelong and native New Yorker, I am horrified at the prospect that industry profiteers may be allowed to compromise our clean and beautiful water resources in our state. How can there possibly be "safe fracking"? It is indeed an oxymoron. By its very process, fracking will turn the jewel in our crown, our clean water, into filth, as it has in Pennsylvania and out west. Have our state politicians seen Gasland? The film shows how appalling is this practice of retrieving deeply buried gas by shattering rock with chemical-saturated blasted water. We are living in a time when alternative energy sources are not only possible, but currently viable. Our legislation should reflect our commitment to green energy technology and therefore send these gas companies packing. Call me an obstructionist but I don't want frackers in New York under any circumstances. These companies need to move into the 21st century and stop polluting everyone's resources.

May. 09 2012 09:52 AM
Peg from atop New York's Marcellus Shale

New York's MOST VALUABLE RESOURCE is our plentiful supply of fresh, delicious drinking water, and we sit atop a worldwide "motherlode" of it. Humans NEED water; they do not need natural gas. Over and over again, we have examples of polluted drinking water in the fracking regions of the US. New York would be crazy to risk any threat to our water, which some day in the future may be NEEDED by other States and other countries threatened with water insecurity.

What we need to do is to lead the nation and the world in innovating alternative clean energy technologies that will create the jobs and drive the economies of our very near future. Where is all that $$$$$ supposedly ready to trickle down on us from tax breaks to "THE JOB CREATORS"? Why are they not jumping into developing these new and evolving energy technologies?????

Even Climate Change Deniers support research and development of alternative energy sources.

Citizens, you need to get off the bleachers and get in the real game. Call your representatives OFTEN. (They will be very surprised to hear from so many of us, because they think we're mostly "sheep").

May. 09 2012 07:57 AM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.