Examining the Ethics of Fracking
Donna Mclellan :: Sackville Tribune-Post :: 23 July 2014
Treating others as we want to be treated, leaving things a little better than we find them and committing ourselves to improvement; simple concepts that define us as an advanced civilization. They are part of religious teaching and secular parenting and show us the moral path forward despite all the bad things that happen along the way.
Industry and the incredible wealth it creates has been a stumbling block to communities everywhere, because as the underpinning of the modern world, it lacks, in every way, the moral values that we teach as a society.
Fossil fuel extraction in general and fracking in particular are in an ethical no man's land. In the industry's race to squeeze every last drop of oil and gas out of the earth we see a complete lack of transparency in the way they do business. The industry refuses to identify and disclose the many chemicals used during the process of fracking that along with water and sand crack the shale rock to release the natural gas. The group of highly toxic chemicals used to frack are known carcinogens and hormone disrupters; if they were really safe why keep it a secret?
The issue of the integrity of the well casings is another another area where the industry equivocates. Age and stability determine the dependability of these casings, we know they will leak sooner or later. If they are truthful about structural weaknesses it is a no win situation, from their perspective, improving the flaws in the infrastructure would be cost prohibitive.
In the U.S there is a shocking breach of ethics called the Halliburton Loophole that in 2005 exempted all fracking procedures from the U.S Clean Air and Clean Water Acts. Canadian regulators have not gone down that road per se, but they allow unconventional shale gas drilling the same leeway, with regard to Canada's Water Act, as they do conventional gas drilling, which is a far less toxic technology. If the fracking process is safe, why does the industry need an exemption from legislation designed to protect the environment? And why would we believe claims that industry will adhere to safety regulations if they don't have to follow the same rules as everyone else?
Interestingly, the 17th Congressional District in Pennsylvania recently succeeded in repealing this loophole as a first step toward untangling one of the worst ethical conundrums this beleaguered state has had to deal with during the last ten years.
Safety issues are also central to the ethical debate concerning fracking. Both industry and government say fracking is safe, but to date there are no peer reviewed scientific studies to support this. Governments insist that fracking can be done safely with proper over sight and firm regulations, but we have seen many municipalities in which regulations become meaningless because there is no political will to enforce them.
We know too, that the industry does not have the technology to deal with the waste that fracking produces, whether it is methane emissions that increase air pollution and exacerbate climate change, or the treatment of toxic waste water that surfaces in pools above ground. This flowback is routinely injected back into the earth but more often than we know, this toxic radioactive waste water is simply dumped into local lakes and rivers. No current technology exists to deal with these problems.
Yet the industry continues to repeat that oil and gas exploration is safe for the environment using television ads showing people in hard hats viewing grassy landscapes with satisfaction, suggesting that land is properly reclaimed by industry after the oil and gas rigs have come and gone. And we see smiling people in hardhats
holding beakers of clear water, demonstrating the impossible, that waste water can be easily purified.
But perhaps the industry's use of influence to place a "gag order" on doctors in Pennsylvania is the most shocking ethical lapse so far. When doctors realized there was a connection between industry workers and local residents and clusters of degenerative diseases, the shale gas lobby used it's considerable political influence to legally silence them. Doctors who sign an oath to "do no harm" are now unable to discuss with their patients what is making them sick if it relates to the chemicals involved in fracking, thanks to a bill called Act 13.
This is the industry that wants to start drilling in N.B. and has the full confidence of the Conservative Government. The public not only want to perceive that corporations are behaving ethically, they want to see evidence of this as well. The lack of trust in the shale gas industry has created the significant push-back against government policy that we see in N.B. today.
Industry intentionally misinforms the government and government misleads the public in a troubling parody of what good government is supposed to be. The refusal to consult with and reassure (with evidence) concerned citizens who know that there is a great deal to be worried about regarding this industry, is troubling as well. Government
can produce no credible information that fracking is safe in a world awash with information that it is harmful.
This all disrespects the notion so common among people of all ethnic and religious backgrounds that we ultimately need to leave the environment to our children and grandchildren in better shape than it is today. We need to reclaim democracy, which is rapidly slipping away, and insist that both the government and the oil and gas industry are accountable to the public.
We need to understand that we are all in this serious and challenging situation together, have a change of heart, and treat one another with respect and fellowship.
We need to look at the impact of our culture on human communities and consider the well being of future generations.
And we need to be active as citizens in defending the rights and freedoms that have been legislated to protect us.
"In order to achieve sustainable development, policies must be based on the Precautionary Principle. Environmental measures must anticipate, prevent and attack the causes of environmental degradation. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation."
Supreme Court of Canada, Section 2.3
Donna Mclellan for the
Tantramar Alliance Against Hydrofracking
No comments:
Post a Comment