TODAY I WANT TO BEGIN A REVIEW of some compelling material on the issue of fracking, that process whereby oil companies drill and inject approximately 700 extremely powerful chemicals into the ground to break up rock and open channels for oil to flow and become available for pumping. I always find it fascinating to have it reinforced that the companies involved not only do not have to reveal the specific chemical cocktails they mix for the party, but that the public apparently does not have the right to information about what is being injected into the land underneath or adjacent to their own property!

I open, however, with a dramatic and startling piece by Jon Queally, “‘There Is No Alternative’: Fossil Fuel Deposits Must Stay in the Ground,” published by Common Dreams on Sept. 11, with respect to the whole issue of fossil fuel extraction.

“‘There is no alternative.’

“… in the contemporary context of planetary global warming and climate change, the phrase was employed this week by Robert Pollin, professor of economics and director of the Political Economic Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, as he presented a green energy and jobs growth plan for the United States that he and his research colleagues say could transform the fossil fuel-based economy into one based nearly entirely on renewable power in just two decades. …

“In addition to massive public and private investments in truly cleaner and renewable forms of energy paired with dramatic increases of energy efficiency in buildings, transportation systems, and industrial processing, Pollin declared that the other essential feature of his team’s plan would be that the world’s fossil fuel companies be compelled to leave their untapped reserves of coal, oil, and natural gas unexploited and in the ground.

Though Pollin acknowledges that the wealthy and politically powerful titans of industry will not let an estimated $3 trillion worth of coal, oil, and gas to become what are called ‘stranded assets’ — simply left in the ground — ‘without a fight,’ he argues that this is precisely what the physics of climate science and the hope for a more sane economic future both demand….

“‘The fossil fuel industry,’ he concludes, ‘will inevitably have to experience major cutbacks and, over the longer term, near-total demise. There is simply no choice in the matter if we believe the research produced by climate scientists. The profits of oil, coal, and natural gas companies will have to yield to the imperative of sustaining life on earth.”

With that blockbuster proposal (or demand!) fixed firmly in mind, I move to some materials on the price being paid for maintaining the status quo.

I quote from an Aug. 26 piece from Grist, “The U.N.’s latest report on climate change is terrifying,” by Sara Bernard:

“Yep, we know that greenhouse gas emissions are through the roof, and that climate change is already happening in a big, bad way, and that it’s only getting worse. But did you see the news stories about the latest draft report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)? They are positively horrifying! We are royally f#!@ed, everybody. The key word that the report uses to describe our plight: irreversible! …

“The IPCC — a team of scientists and other experts appointed by the United Nations to periodically review the latest research on climate science — has been rolling out its fifth assessment report in four installments, and this draft is the latest.

“While it restates many things included in earlier reports, this time it uses stronger words in hopes that you and I and everyone else will actually freak out the way we should given the circumstances. Grueling heat waves, droughts, floods, and all kinds of extreme weather are likely to continue and intensify. And the IPCC is trying to get the world to do something about it.

“And that’s because — despite what we know — we’re not doing better at curbing emissions.

From The New York Times story on the same report:

“The world may already be nearing a temperature at which the loss of the vast ice sheet covering Greenland would become inevitable, the report said. The actual melting would then take centuries, but it would be unstoppable and could result in a sea level rise of 23 feet, with additional increases from other sources, like melting Antarctic ice, potentially flooding the world’s major cities. …

“Using blunter, more forceful language than the reports that underpin it, the new draft highlights the urgency of the risks likely to be intensified by continued emissions of heat-trapping gases, primarily carbon dioxide released by the burning of fossil fuels like coal, oil and natural gas. …

“From 1970 to 2000, global emissions of greenhouse gases grew at 1.3 percent a year. But from 2000 to 2010, that rate jumped to 2.2 percent a year, the report found, and the pace seems to be accelerating further in this decade.”

With that (somewhat!) dramatic background, I shift to the issue of “fracking,” or hydraulic fracturing, that mushrooming industry that has been revolutionizing the oil extraction business, dotting the American landscape with its structures and cuddling up tight with many, many thousands of Americans who tend to find the affection difficult to reciprocate.

For the following I draw from a powerful Feb. 25, 2013 piece by the Wilderness Society, “Fracking dangers: 7 ugly reasons why wilderness lovers should be worried”:

“Fracking, or hydraulic fracturing, is a technique used by the oil and gas industry to extract natural gas from rock thousands of feet underground. The fracking process includes pumping millions of gallons of water, sand and toxic chemicals (including carcinogens) underground.

“Evidence suggests that this risky process affects the water we drink, air we breathe, food we eat and climate we rely on for comfort. And like all oil and gas efforts, it endangers the wild places we love dearly.”

Following is the ugly story quoted in full:

“1. Fracking disrupts and threatens wild lands

“Fracking negatively impacts wild lands treasured by all Americans. Lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in the Rocky Mountain West. Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, and New Mexico contain some of the most spectacular American landscapes but are also coveted for their natural gas resources. This spring, the BLM did announce a new policy for chemical disclosure on leased lands. The Wilderness Society strongly supports setting more stringent standards because these proposed rules don’t require public disclosure about fracking chemicals until after the drilling has been completed.” (Now that’s public protection!)

“2. Fracking contaminates drinking water

“Last fall, the EPA released a report showing that fracking had contaminated groundwater in Wyoming, sparking a deluge of speculation about water pollution as a consequence of natural gas extraction. The evidence was used to back a claim that Pennsylvania water wells were polluted with methane! The New York Times’ own investigation in the state showed levels of radiation well beyond federal drinking-water standards. In places like Texas, it’s harder to get evidence, which some suspect is because of conflict of interest.” (And what could that possibly be?!)

“There are 29 states with fracking in some stage of development or activity.

“3. Fracking pollutes the air with scary pollutants

“Since Garfield County, Colorado has experienced fracking development, residents who live within a half mile of the natural gas wells have been exposed to air pollutants, like the carcinogen benzene and toxic hydrocarbons known to cause respiratory and neurological problems, according to a three-year study from the Colorado School of Public Health. Colorado allows companies to drill for natural gas within 150 feet of homes, so nearby residents could be facing acute and chronic health problems like leukemia in the long term.

“4. Global warming gone overboard

“In some ways, the most significant air pollutant is methane, a greenhouse gas that traps 20 to 25 times more heat in the atmosphere than does carbon dioxide. While some claim that the cost is worth the benefits if it means we can transition away from fossil fuels, it has been shown that the ‘footprint’ of shale gas is actually 20 percent higher than coal.

“5. Even if you don’t drink the water, animals will

“Of course, water pollution not only affects human populations, it affects other wildlife as well. This should concern anyone who eats meat, whether they hunt it or purchase it indirectly from a farm, which may incidentally be near a fracking well. In addition to degradation of habitat and interference with migration and reproduction, farmers have reported illness and death among domestic animals exposed to fracking wastewater.

“6. Fracking also causes earthquakes?

“Hydraulic fracturing involves pumping massive amounts of water into the Earth’s crust to break apart rock, so it should be no surprise that small earthquakes that have occurred in Ohio and Arkansas have been linked to nearby wastewater wells.

“7. Despite recorded health risks, the facts are hard to find

“Fracking takes advantage of loopholes in federal laws designed to protect drinking water, so the chemicals used in drilling are not required by federal law to be publicly disclosed. Disclosure requirements for fracking chemicals differ widely from state to state, but the majority of states with fracking have no disclosure rules at all (only 14 out of the 29 have any!). The rules that do exist are inadequate, failing to require disclosure of many important aspects, such as:

“• pre-fracking disclosure of all chemicals that may be used (this makes it impossible to trace and prove the source of water contamination if it arises)

“• disclosure of the concentration of all chemicals

“• full disclosure to medical professionals in the event of an accident because of ‘trade secret’ exemptions.” (Italics mine)

I find those protections of “trade secrets” a reassuring signal that big government really does have a heart!

And that’s it for one session! For the masochists amongst us, I promise more good news next week.

Jerome Page is a Benicia resident.