Fox News Addresses the Increased Death of Eagles due to Wind Turbines

           This post is a response to a group of Fox News correspondents talking about the increased death toll of eagles due to wind turbines. The group criticized the killing of eagles for wind energy and encouraged the use of natural gas and nuclear energy. They also criticized environmentalists for being "selective" in what they advocated for. For instance they discredited groups for hating on oil and gas companies for destroying the environment, but excuse wind energy companies. The correspondents for Fox News also bashed climate change as a result of humans because there was a study that showed that the temperature was going to stay consistent for the next thirty years, even with the increase in CO2 emissions.
         
What?? What is this??? Look it's graphs and actual FACTS!!!!! I know Fox News people, it's crazy but facts and data actually exists!!

           Now let's talk about this data, because obviously you guys are unfamiliar with reading graphs. So that first graph is say that buildings and windows are the number one cause of deaths to birds, along with cats. Even power lines kill more birds than wind turbines! I don't mean to sound heartless towards the birds killed, I'm a big advocate for biodiversity and the safety of animals, but wind turbines aren't the biggest problem here. I think the solution to this is by prohibiting wind turbine companies from building wind farms in the path of birds migratory path.

          As for CO2 emissions not causing climate change and climate change not existing, let's get real here. The Green House Effect is necessary for human life, but recently humans have been contributing to the layer in the atmosphere that traps radiation from escaping. Therefore more heat is being trapped and warming the planet. If you want to believe it's a hoax you can join the guy I met on the subway a couple weeks ago and live in a world of lies, or you can join reality and accept the fact that the earth is getting warmer at unprecedented rate due to the emissions of humans.

        Lastly, there is some hope about Democrats and Republicans getting along because new evidence is coming out that makes nuclear seem like a safe and sustainable bet. (The trailer to the new documentary about it.)

The Tangible Effects of Hydraulic Fracturing

          A recent NY Times article addressed the negative effects of "boom" cities created by natural gas  companies (N.G.C.). To recap, this article discusses the increase in violence in the formerly little towns N.G.C. have nested in. A pattern has developed in which N.G.C. set up base in the rural towns with natural gas underfoot. This attracts many people in need of jobs, these people tend to be male and young. Due to the sudden increase in population, there is also a sudden increase in hotels, bars, etc. With this particular demographic taking over the population, drinking and drug consumption ensues. This results in the increase of violence. This wouldn't be such a problem if the police forces were big enough, however the police are used to a smaller population with smaller scale crimes. They are not prepared for the overwhelming number of cases of disappearances and homicides that they are now faced with. This situation is similar to the Gold Rush in the West some time ago, a small rural town is suddenly faced with an increased population and it strains the dynamic and safety of the town.
            So what's to be done? The taxes of residences in these towns could increase to cover the new necessity of police. However this is really a long term solution for a problem that will quickly subside once the N.G.C. abandon the towns. These towns are not sustainable because they are built not upon sustainable jobs, but rather ephemeral jobs. The towns will eventually become ghost towns when the drills dry up and the population subsides. I think it's worth it to build the police department because the damage has already been done and the increased violence needs to be dealt with. Violence has already increased due to an increase in population. This needs to be taken care of and therefore the police department needs to grow in order to meet these demands. However I don't think the tab for an increased police department should be placed upon the citizens, but rather the N.G.C. These companies are the cause of this increased population, and that's nice that they're creating new jobs, but these jobs are also stirring up violence. The N.G.C. shouldn't necessarily pick up the whole bill, but they should have more taxes placed on them to deal with the problems they create.

Here's a political cartoon describing the real jobs that N.G.C. are making:

After reading this article I think the cartoonist should also add "policeman".

The Anti-Fracking View

Now that I've given the Pro-Fracking view, I will give you my Anti-Fracking view....

          I first started hating on fracking during a lecture about hydraulic fracturing legislation. I was surprised because the presenter repeatedly joked that New York made regulations by “doing the opposite of whatever Pennsylvania did”. I was irritated because I am from Pennsylvania and though I cannot set my tap water on fire, I am still disturbed by the effects of hydraulic fracturing. Although discouraging, this lecture sparked my passion for environmental dilemmas and motivated me to explore them.
          The cons of fracking include: immense water usage, water pollution, boom & bust towns (this will be addressed in the next post), truck usage, road building, and air pollution leading to climate change. Of the water present on earth, 97% of the it is sawdy (the slang word for salty), the other 3% is freshwater. Of this 3% only 30% is groundwater, the rest is frozen! 

            These percentages are merely used to show that the amount of drinkable water on earth is extremely limited. Each natural gas well uses millions of gallons of water. This would be worth it if there was legislation forcing natural gas companies to clean the water they contaminated. Right now companies keep that shit in a plastic lined hole in the ground. This is not a sustainable way to take care of water that has been mixed with carcinogens and toxins. 

          What do people think is going to happen to that sludge?? It shouldn't evaporate because then it will contaminate the air with all the crap that's in it!! It shouldn't seep into the aquifers because some of us like to drink clean water!! Come on people this isn't rocket science!! We need politicians to protect us from money grubbing companies who are just trying to make the most money possible and taking short cuts from keeping the earth clean.
          Let's pretend for a moment that these plastic linings are sufficient and that the nasty water companies keep in it is safely contained. There's still the water that is not successfully retrieved from the pipes and that leaks into local wells and aquifers. There have been several cases involving families suing these companies because of health effects down the road. These will be investigated later in a later post (get psyched!).
          Natural gas wells aren't in the middle of cities where there is already a road built for heavy duty trucks. This means that N.G. companies build new roads in previously pristine pieces of undisturbed land. This is bad for the environment because it creates more "edge". The edge of roads is a dangerous place for animals because they can easily become roadkill or succumb to the oil runoff of cars. The many trucks used to transport the gas too and fro burns gas which releases carbon dioxide and methane into the atmosphere.
          The air pollution of natural gas is not as bad as other fossil fuels, however it still emits a significant amount as seen below.

The Specific Facts:
This website gives an interesting visual to the dangers of fracking.

Sources:
http://www.agci.org/classroom/hydrosphere/
http://www.energyjustice.net/content/trash-and-biomass-incineration-worse-climate-coal

Pro-Fracking View

          As the previous post describes, America and the world is in an Energy Crisis. America's turbulent relationships Iraq and Afghanistan, significant oil providers, has increased the appeal of "home grown" oil. In a way this is good, instead of relying on countries we don't have a healthy relationship (something about starting wars with them and terrorism), we can rely on more stable sources of energy. As the bar graph below shows, the U.S. has decreased it's dependence on foreign oil, not because we've decreased the amount of energy we're consuming, on the contrary the amount of energy we're consuming is increasing, bur rather because we have invested more in natural gas and renewable energy. Relying less on foreign oil boosts our national security and relationships because we're not as involved or controlling in other countries. The other big incentive for investing in fracking is the stimulus it gives to the economy. The fracking companies sometimes pay families more money than they make in a year. After the fracking companies have bought the land they employ drivers to transport the gas and workers to do manual labor. They also employ scientists to oversee the drill and make the process more efficient. In a Job Crisis (so many crises!) any increase in employment, an estimated 1.7 million jobs,
is important to help families and the economy recover.

Link to Debate at Tufts

Break Down of Energy Consumption in America

        Right now we are in an "Energy Crisis" for multiple reasons. We depend on energy for electricity which we use everyday for light, heating, cooling, computers, etc. Energy is also used for transportation   via airplanes, trains, cars, etc. As the population of the world along with the amount of people using electricity and traveling increases, energy has become in high demand. However we are consuming energy at an unprecedented and unsustainable rate. Most of our energy comes from nonrenewable sources (sources of energy that can't be replenished in our lifetime, but rather takes billions of years to regenerate) such as coal, natural gas, and coal. Nuclear power is technically nonrenewable because there is a finite amount of uranium, but there is a lot of it so it's regarded as a sustainable alternative. Each type of energy has it's own interest groups; the intents of these groups will be discussed in further detail in later blog posts.
            The diagram below shows how much of different types of energy America uses. Oil became very popular in the 1950s because that is when oil could be found in Texas. These wells didn't last too long and created many ghost towns. A ghost town occurs when a temporary rise in jobs attracts businesses and families, but then when the source of those jobs is depleted everyone leaves the town. When Texas dried up, America turned to foreign countries for oil (possibly a cause for the invasion of Afghanistan). Coal has dramatically decreased in popularity because it must be burned to release its energy. This process causes pollution of carbon dioxide, which is a contributer to climate change. Investors have turned to natural gas to provide an alternative to foreign oil. Natural gas isn't fool proof, but it's heavily abundant and "local", plus renewable energy couldn't handle the pressure of providing energy for all of America. This is evident in the pie chart that shows the present, but little contribution renewable energy makes to providing electricity.

Hydraulic Fracturing Legislation in Dryden, NY

Hydraulic Fracturing, otherwise known as fracking has been a controversial topic dividing the United States. The pros of fracking include an influx in jobs and economic growth. One well can last 20-40 years; this tends to create "boom and bust" towns in which there is an initial increase in economic prosperity then decrease as the well becomes inactive. The cons of fracking include habitat destruction because of the roads built to reach the drills, the use of millions of gallons of water, watershed/aquifer contamination and health effects. In August 2011 local lobbyists went to the highest court in New York, the Court of Appeals, to get fracking banned in Dryden, NY. This ban has been bombarded by gas lobbyists ever since its passing and now the state is deciding whether or not to uphold it. Mr. Cuomo, the governor of New York, commented that fracking would bring in revenue, but that health risks had to be taken into account. The Department of health has been working on determining the health effects of fracking for a year, but no report has been published. Both sides of the fracking controversy are frustrated by the lack of publications by the Department of Health and wish to know the findings. One hypothesis for the delay mentioned in the New York Times article about this topic in Dryden (the link is posted below) is that New York legislatures do not want to take a firm positive or negative stance on the topic for fear of loosing NY voters. Mr. Cuomo is up for election next year and it makes sense that he would postpone this dividing issue until after his campaign for reelection. In a Siena College Poll 43% of voters statewide opposed fracking, while 38% approved of the method. This narrow margin would explain why Mr. Cuomo might advice the Department of Health to take as much time as it wants to conduct a survey of the health effects of fracking. I think Mr. Cuomo has an easy decision to make, hydraulic fracturing uses tons of water to get energy in an unsustainable and damaging way, it would make much more sense to invest in sustainable energy. 

he link to the 

Link: NY Times Article about Legislation in Dryden, NY

A video about what fracking is and its implications: