June, 13 2011, 04:34pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Kate Fried, Food & Water Watch: (202) 683.4905, kfried(at)fwwatch(dot)org.
Advocates for Safe, Clean Water Call for Local and Federal Bans on Fracking
New Food & Water Watch Report Highlights Public Health Risks Associated With Controversial Practice
ALBANY, N.Y.
The movement to protect public health and essential natural resources escalated today when the national consumer advocacy group Food & Water Watch joined with Frack Action and New York State Senator Tony Avella (D-Queens) to call on New York State and the federal government to ban the practice of hydraulic fracturing.
"The U.S. is experiencing a boom in shale gas production, and this has come at the detriment of consumers and the environment," said Food & Water Watch Executive Director Wenonah Hauter. "Contrary to what the natural gas industry wants us to believe, fracking is not a panacea to our energy woes. It is a toxic practice that threatens essential resources, poisons people and livestock and erodes the quality of life in rural America. New York State and the federal government should take a good long look at the dangers of fracking and ban it before it inflicts any more harm on U.S. communities."
Fracking involves injecting water, sand and potentially toxic chemicals deep underground to break up dense rock formations and release natural gas. The process can pollute water supplies when fracking chemicals leak into underground wells, or when accidents spill the fluids into rivers or streams.
Public opposition to fracking has escalated in recent months. According to Food & Water Watch, at least 55 localities across the U.S. have passed measures against fracking.
Late last year, New York State passed a six-month moratorium on the practice. In late May, New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman sued the federal government for not assessing the environmental impacts of fracking near the Delaware River, which supplies drinking water for 15 million Americans. The New York State Senate is currently considering legislation that would ban fracking, as well as a bill that would require hazardous waste produced from fracking to be subject to the treatment requirements of hazardous waste.
"Since last year's moratorium battle, we've seen a near-constant stream of revelations and devastating news that has expanded our knowledge of the myriad dangers of fracking, and the extent to which this practice has only been allowed to move forward through the suppression of scientific evidence and the collusion of political leaders with oil and gas corporations," said Claire Sandberg, executive director of Frack Action. "With more damning revelations emerging every day--from the levels of radioactivity in fracking wastewater, to political pressure on the EPA, to the news that gas companies have used over 32 million gallons of diesel fuel as an injection fluid in 19 states--we see now that only a full and permanent ban on hydraulic fracturing will adequately protect New Yorkers."
This backlash against fracking is reinforced by a report also released today by Food & Water Watch that highlights why natural gas drilling poses unacceptable risks to the American public. The Case for a Ban on Gas Fracking shows how the natural gas industry's use of water-intensive, toxic, unregulated practices for natural gas extraction are compromising public health and polluting water resources necessary for human health and sanitation, businesses and agriculture.
Natural gas fracked from shale has increased in recent years as new techniques allowed drillers to access natural gas deposits that were previously considered too dense or far underground to economically extract. Shale fracking drills deep curving horizontal wells into rock formations, injecting them with a mixture of water and chemicals to extract gas. The EPA estimates that 70 to 140 billion gallons of water are pumped into 35,000 fracking wells annually.
According to Department of Energy figures, fracked shale and coalbed gas production increased nearly 150 percent between 2000 and 2010. Over the last four years, shale gas production increased an average of 48 percent annually.
The oil and gas industry lobby paved the way for the expansion of fracking. The 10 largest natural gas producers and two trade associations spent more than $370 million lobbying between 2005 and 2010, according to Food & Water Watch analysis of Center for Responsive Politics data. Fracking is exempt from regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act, which allows gas companies to inject almost any chemical into fracked wells, and they are not legally required to disclose these chemicals claiming they are proprietary "trade secrets."
In 2011, the U.S. House and Energy Commerce Committee found that between 2005 and 2009, 14 oil companies injected 780 million gallons of fracking chemicals and other substances into U.S. wells. This included 10.2 million gallons of fluids containing known or suspected carcinogens. Scientists at the Endocrine Disruption Exchange found that 25 percent of fracking fluids can cause cancer; 37 percent can disrupt the endocrine system; and 40 to 50 percent can affect the nervous, immune and cardiovascular systems.
Opponents of fracking cite the high potential for water and air pollution as a leading reason to ban the practice. Over 1,000 cases of water contamination have been reported near fracking sites. A study released by researchers at Duke University in April found methane levels in shallow drinking water wells near active gas drilling sites at a level 17 times higher than those near inactive ones. Similarly, a 2011 Cornell University study found that the process of fracking releases methane, which according to the EPA, is 21 times more damaging greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.
"Given the numerous accidents in other states, and the DEC's extremely limited resources, I have yet to be convinced that hydrofracking can be safely executed in New York State," said New York State Senator Tony Avella, who is the ranking member of the Environmental Conservation Committee. "New York's abundant clean water is our most precious resource, and it is simply too valuable to risk. If our water is polluted, it is gone forever. The science is simply not fully developed to prevent accidents that will do irreparable harm to our water supply and our farmland, and we are not prepared to handle the contamination should an incident occur. Until we can be one hundred percent assured there is no chance of any harmful contaminants leaking into our drinking water we must ban the practice completely."
Between 30 and 70 percent of the fluids used in fracking are discharged as wastewater. In 2008, a fracking wastewater pit in Colorado leaked 1.6 million gallons of fluids, which migrated into the Colorado River. Fracking operations in Pennsylvania alone are expected to create 19 million gallons of wastewater, which can contain radioactive elements, and cannot be effectively treated by municipal wastewater plants.
"The more I learn about hydrofracking, the more concerned I grow about its negative effects on our health and our environment," said New York State Senator Liz Kruger (D-Manhattan). "There is simply too much scientific evidence that this practice poses insurmountable dangers. For the safety of all New Yorkers we cannot allow hydrofracking to take place in the State of New York. There is too much at risk."
Despite the public health and environmental risks associated with the process, many states have allowed fracking in hopes that it could help boost recession-ravaged economies. Between 2006 and 2011, Pennsylvania attributed $1.1 billion in state revenue to natural gas drilling.
Yet in many places, fracking has eroded the quality of life for local residents. In Wise County, Texas properties with gas wells have lost 75 percent of their value, and residents in communities host to fracking operations have experienced headaches and blackouts from air pollution. One Texas hospital serving counties near drilling sites reported asthma rates three times higher than the state average with one quarter of the children it served suffering from the ailment. In Ohio, a house exploded after a fracked gas well leaked methane into the home's water supply.
"The public health impacts of fracking are already a reality for many of us in New York" said Natalie Brant from Collins, NY, whose family including her husband and eight children have experienced health problems since vertical fracking began at their residence three years ago. "The health problems of many families are only going to get worse unless the New York State legislature and Governor Cuomo put the well-being of the people before the profits of giant gas companies."
The Case for a Ban on Gas Fracking is available here:
https://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/reports/the-case-for-a-ban-on-gas-fracking
A map of municipalities that have taken action against fracking is available here:
https://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/water/fracking/fracking-action-center/map/
Frack Action is engaged in a long-term campaign to protect our water, air and public health from the dangerous practice of hydraulic fracturing. By raising awareness and empowering the public to organize in defense of their communities, we seek to expose the false claims of the gas industry and mobilize a citizen movement to protect our health and our future.
Food & Water Watch mobilizes regular people to build political power to move bold and uncompromised solutions to the most pressing food, water, and climate problems of our time. We work to protect people's health, communities, and democracy from the growing destructive power of the most powerful economic interests.
(202) 683-2500LATEST NEWS
Supreme Court Urged to 'Rule Quickly' After Trump Immunity Arguments
"It'd be a travesty for justices to delay matters further," said one legal expert.
Apr 25, 2024
After about three hours of oral arguments Thursday on former President Donald Trump's immunity claims, legal experts and democracy defenders urged the U.S. Supreme Court to rule swiftly, with just over six months until the November election.
Trump—the presumptive Republican candidate to challenge Democratic President Joe Biden, despite his 88 felony charges in four ongoing criminal cases—is arguing that presidential immunity should protect him from federal charges for trying to overturn his 2020 loss to Biden, which culminated in the January 6, 2021 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol.
Justices across the ideological spectrum didn't seem inclined to support Trump's broad immunity claims—which critics have said "reflect a misreading of constitutional text and history as well as this court's precedent." However, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) shared examples of what it would mean if they did.
"Trump could sell pardons, ambassadorships, and other official benefits to his wealthy donors, members of his clubs, or cronies who helped him commit other crimes," CREW warned. "Trump could sell nuclear codes and government secrets to help pay back crippling debts."
"But this isn't just about what Donald Trump could do. It's really about how total immunity for the president would threaten our democratic system of checks and balances," the group continued. "The president could order the military to assassinate activists, political opponents, members of Congress, or even Supreme Court justices, so long as he claimed it related to some official act."
After warning that a president could also order the occupation or closure of the Capitol or high court to prevent actions against him, CREW concluded that "the Supreme Court never should have taken this appeal up in the first place. They should rule quickly and shut these ludicrous claims down for good."
The organization was far from alone in demanding a quick decision from the nation's highest court.
"In the name of accountability, the court must not delay its decision," the Brennan Center for Justice said Thursday evening. "The Supreme Court's time is up. It needs to let the prosecution move forward. The court decided Bush v. Gore in three days—it should act with similar alacrity in deciding Trump v. U.S."
In Bush v. Gore, the case that decided the 2000 election, the high court issued a related stay on December 9, heard oral arguments on December 11, and issued a final decision on December 12.
On Thursday, the arguments "got away from the central question: Is a former president immune from criminal prosecution if he tried to overthrow a presidential election, using private means and the power of his office to do so?" the Brennan Center noted. "The answer is simple: No."
"It is not an 'official act' to try to overthrow the peaceful transfer of power or the Constitution, even if you conspire with other government officials to do it or use the Oval Office phone," the center said. "Trump's attorney was pushing the court to come up with a sea change in the law. That's unnecessary and a delay tactic that will hurt the pursuit of justice in this case."
In a departure from previous claims, Trump's attorney, D. John Sauer, "appeared to agree with Special Counsel Jack Smith, who is leading the prosecution, that there are some allegations in the indictment that do not involve 'official acts' of the president," NBC Newsreported, noting questions from liberal Justice Elena Kagan and conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a Trump appointee.
Barrett summarized various allegations from the indictment and in three cases—involving dishonest election claims, false allegations of fraud, and fake electors—Sauer conceded that Trump's alleged conduct sounded private, suggesting that a more narrow case against the ex-president that excluded any potential official acts could proceed.
Due to Trump attorney's concessions in Supreme Court oral argument, there's now a very clear path for DOJ's case to go forward.\n\nIt'd be a travesty for Justices to delay matters further.\n\nJustice Amy Coney Barrett got Trump attorney to concede core allegations are private acts.\u2b07\ufe0f— (@)
According to NBC:
Matthew Seligman, a lawyer and a fellow at the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School who filed a brief backing prosecutors, said Sauer's concessions highlight that Trump is "not immune for the vast majority of the conduct alleged in the indictment."
Ultimately, he said, the case will go to trial "absent some external intervention—like Trump ordering [the Justice Department] to drop the charges" after having won the election.
At the same time, Sauer's backtracking might have little consequence from an electoral perspective. Further delay in a trial, which Sauer is close to achieving, is a form of victory in itself.
Slate's Mark Joseph Stern pointed out that when Barrett similarly questioned Michael Dreeben, the U.S. Department of Justice lawyer arguing the case for Smith, it seemed like they "were trying to work out some compromise wherein the trial court could distinguish between official and unofficial acts, then instruct the jury not to impose criminal liability on the former."
"It was fascinating to watch Barrett nodding along as Dreeben pitched a compromise that would largely preserve Smith's January 6 prosecution but limit what the jury could hear, or at least consider," Stern added. "That, though, would take months to suss out in the trial court. More delays!"
Stern and other experts signaled that the decision likely comes down to Barrett and Chief Justice John Roberts, with the three liberals seemingly supporting the prosecution of Trump and the other four conservatives suggesting it is unconstitutional.
People for the American Way president Svante Myrick said in a statement that "today's argument brought both good and bad news. It was chilling to hear Donald Trump's lawyer say that staging a military coup could be considered part of a president's official duties."
"Thankfully, the majority of the court, including conservative justices, did not seem to buy that very broad Trump argument that a former president is absolutely immune from prosecution under any circumstances," Myrick added. "On the other hand, it's not clear that there is a majority on this court that will quickly reject the immunity arguments and let the case go forward in time for a trial before the election. That's a huge concern."
Trump was not at the Supreme Court on Thursday; he was at his trial in New York, where he faces 34 counts for allegedly falsifying business records related to hush money payments to cover up sex scandals during the 2016 election cycle. The are two other cases: a federal one for mishandling classified material and another in Georgia for interfering with the last presidential contest.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Just the Beginning': 50+ Arrested for Blockading Citigroup Bank Over Climate Crimes
"Through people-powered resistance, we can give money a conscience and stop Citi's destruction of our planet," said one Indigenous campaigner.
Apr 25, 2024
Twenty more demonstrators were arrested Thursday, the second day of Earth Week protests targeting Citigroup's Manhattan headquarters in what organizers called "the beginning of a wave of direct actions to take place over the summer targeting big banks for creating climate chaos that is killing our communities and our planet."
Protest organizers—who include Climate Defenders, New York Communities for Change, Planet over Profit, and Stop the Money Pipeline—said 53 activists were arrested over two days of demonstrations, which included blocking the entrance to Citigroup's headquarters, to "demand that the bank stop funding fossil fuels."
Organizers said this week's demonstrations "were just the beginning" of what they're calling a "Summer of Heat" targeting big banks for their role in the climate emergency and for "polluting our land, air, and water, and threatening the health of children, families, and our planet." Citigroup is the world's second-largest fossil fuel financier.
"We're holding Citi accountable for financing dirty fossil fuels from Canada to Latin America and beyond," said Chief Na'moks of the Wet'suwet'en Nation, one of several Indigenous leaders who took part in the action. "Through people-powered resistance, we can give money a conscience and stop Citi's destruction of our planet."
Jonathan Westin, executive director of Climate Defenders, asserted that "Citigroup's racist funding of oil, coal, and gas is creating climate chaos that's devastating communities of color across the country."
"We're taking action to tell Citi that we won't put up with their environmental racism for one more day," Westin continued. "Our communities have reached the boiling point. Our children have asthma, our city's sky was orange, and our air polluted because of the climate crisis caused by Citi and Wall Street."
"We're going to keep organizing and taking direct action until Citi listens to us," he vowed.
Stop the Money Pipeline co-director Alec Connon said: "To have any chance of reigning in the climate crisis, we must stop investing in fossil fuel expansion. Yet, Citibank is pumping billions of dollars into new coal, oil, and gas projects."
"We're here to make it clear: If they're going to fund the companies disrupting our climate and our lives, we're going to disrupt their business," Connon added.
Activists have repeatedly targeted Citigroup in recent years as the megabank has pumped more than $300 billion into fossil fuel investments around the world since the Paris climate agreement.
According to the protest organizers:
Citi has provided $668 million in funding to Formosa Plastics between 2001-2021, which is trying to build a $9.4 billion plastics facility in a majority Black community in the heart of Cancer Alley in Louisiana.
Citigroup is also one of the biggest funders of state-run oil and gas companies in the Amazon basin, pumping in over $40 billion between 2016-2020, and a major backer of Petroperú, which has been involved in oil spills and Indigenous rights violations.
"From wildfires, heatwaves, and floods to deadly air pollution and mass drought, Citi's fossil fuel financing is killing us," said Alice Hu of New York Communities for Change. "We've sent polite petitions and had pleading meetings with bank representatives, but Citi refuses to stop pouring billions each year into coal, oil, and gas."
"That's why we're fighting for our lives now with the best tool we have left: mass, nonviolent disruptive civil disobedience," Hu added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
No Outside Probe, US Reiterates as Gazans Reportedly Buried Alive in Mass Grave
"How does it ever make sense that the United States asks the accused party to examine itself?" asked one incredulous reporter.
Apr 25, 2024
A Biden administration spokesperson once again brushed off calls for an independent investigation into how hundreds of Palestinians found in mass graves near Gaza hospitals died when asked Thursday about new reports that many of the victims were tortured, summarily executed—and in some cases, buried alive by Israeli invaders.
During a Thursday U.S. State Department press conference in Washington, D.C., a reporter noted Gaza officials' claim that mass grave victims "including children were tortured before being killed" and that "some even showed signs of being buried alive, along with other crimes against humanity."
"What's wrong with an independent, scientific, forensic investigation?"
Noting calls by Palestinian officials and United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk for an independent probe into mass graves, the reporter said that "this administration repeatedly said that it asks... the Israeli government to investigate itself."
"How does it ever make sense that the United States asks the accused party to examine itself and provide reports that you have previously said that you actually trust?" the reporter asked State Department Principal Deputy Spokesperson Vedant Patel. "What's wrong with an independent, scientific, forensic investigation?"
Patel replied: "We continue to find these reports incredibly troubling. And that's why yesterday you saw the national security adviser for this to be thoroughly investigated."
While National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan on Wednesday called reports of mass grave atrocities "deeply disturbing" and said that "we want answers" from Israel, he did not call for an independent investigation.
When the reporter pressed Patel on the legitimacy of asking Israel to investigate itself, Patel said, "we believe that through a thorough investigation we can get some additional answers."
Thursday's exchange followed a similar back-and-forth on Tuesday between Patel and Said Arikat, a journalist for the Jerusalem-based
Palestinian news outlet al-Quds who asked about the mass graves.
At least 392 bodies—including numerous women and children—have been found in mass graves outside Nasser Hospital in Khan Younis, southern Gaza, where Palestinian Civil Defense and other workers have been exhuming victims for nearly a week. Officials believe there are as many as 700 bodies in three separate mass graves.
Based on more recent exhumations, local Civil Defense chief Yamen Abu Sulaiman said during a Wednesday press conference that "we believe that the occupation buried alive at least 20 people at the Nasser Medical Complex."
"There are cases of field execution of some patients while undergoing surgeries and wearing surgical gowns," he stated, adding that some victims showed signs of torture and 10 bodies had medical tubes attached to them.
Gaza Civil Defense official Mohammed Mughier told reporters that "we need forensic examination" to definitively determine the causes of death for the 20 people believed to have been buried alive.
Previous reporting on the mass graves quoted rescue workers who said they found people who were apparently executed while their hands were bound, with some victims missing heads, skin, and internal organs.
Other mass graves have been found in Gaza, most notably on the grounds of al-Shifa Hospital, where Israeli forces last month committed what the Geneva-based Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor called "one of the largest massacres in Palestinian history."
It's also not the first time there have been reports of Israeli troops burying victims alive during the current war, in which Palestinian and international officials say Israeli forces have killed or wounded more than 122,000 Gazans, including at least 11,000 people who are missing and feared dead. Israeli forces attacking Kamal Adwan Hospital in Beit Lahia last December reportedly bulldozed and buried alive dozens of injured patients and displaced people.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular