As John Oliver predicted in his most recent episode of “Last Week Tonight” on Sunday, he is now being sued by a Republican coal baron who was the subject of the episode. Robert Murray has made it something of a habit to sue media organizations that portray him in a negative way–he sued the New York Times in May.

Murray is the boss of the largest coal company in the country, Murray Energy Corporation. The lawsuit was filed on Tuesday in West Virginia. It targets Oliver, HBO, Time Warner, and “others.” It maintains that Oliver and HBO aired a “meticulously planned attempt to assassinate the character of and reputation of Mr. Robert E. Murray and his companies.” But the whole point of Oliver’s show is satirical jokes, and his team did contact one of Murray’s companies before the episode ran.

Murray answered HBO by sending the media company a cease-and-desist letter–the first ever for “Last Week Tonight.” Oliver didn’t care however, and in the episode he went through some of Murray’s most stupendous moments. The most significant one was when one of his mines collapsed in Utah ten years ago, killing nine workers. A government report later concluded that it was the result of “unauthorized mining practices which increased geological stress levels in the vicinity of working coal miners.”

Coal exec Robert Murray is infamous in Utah. If there were any justice he’d be in prison for Crandall Mine disaster https://t.co/KKKatkZBzu

— Pat Bagley (@Patbagley) June 22, 2017

But while rescue workers were still trying to get people out, Murray talked to reporters and claimed his company had done nothing wrong, and that the accident was due to an earthquake. He still maintains that position today. In congressional hearings afterwards, family members of the deceased said that Murray made matters worse by only talking about the alleged earthquake, refusing to answer questions, and even yelling at them for asking about their loved ones.

Murray’s recent lawsuit states that Time Warner Inc. has donated money to Hillary Clinton’s campaign and that the broadcasts have “vigorously supported and advanced” her agenda, as if that automatically would make the defendants hostile to Murray personally.

It also says that Murray’s website was hacked, and that someone left a message that said, “Eat sh*t, Bob,” after being inspired by the episode in which Oliver was visited by the giant squirrel Mr. Nutterbutter who said the same thing. That was probably inspired by the rumor that Murray once said he went into the coal business because a squirrel approached him and told him to.

John Oliver’s jokes are more stressful than death of employees, says Robert Murray in Lawsuit https://t.co/ltMiQo7qZq #GettingWorse

— Debra Cook Ω (@literarilyme) June 22, 2017

Murray’s health allegedly deteriorated after seeing the episode. He is suffering from Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis, a disease which causes the tissue in the lungs to become thick and stiff so that they can’t transport enough oxygen to the body. “They did this to a man who needs a lung transplant, a man who does not expect to live to see the end of this case,” the lawsuit reads.

But the “Last Week Tonight” episode presents a lot of facts that makes it hard to feel sorry for Murray. Even though he likes to speak in defense of coal workers on TV, he is not exactly doing a lot to help them. In 2016, his company tried to block a new law that would protect miners from coal dust, and called inspections by the Mine Safety and Health Administration a “total harassment.”

Coal dust causes black lung, a disease that killed around 10,000 people between 1995 and 2005. Despite that, Murray claimed that the rule was illegal and destructive and did “nothing for our miner’s health.”

In all, the lawsuit doesn’t seem like it will go anywhere. “Overall I’d say it appears frivolous and vexatious. Any core of merit is buried in nonsense,” said First Amendment lawyer Ken White. He said most of it is “rambling and semi-coherent, mixing fact with opinion and insult.”

Check out the coal episode for yourself:

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Coal Baron Robert Murray Sues John Oliver for Character Assassination appeared first on Law Street.

President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Tuesday that could scrap former President Barack Obama’s Clean Power Plan. What does it mean for the future of U.S. environmental policy?

What is the Clean Power Plan?

In 2015, Obama introduced the Clean Power Plan (CPP) as an effort to cut down on carbon dioxide emissions. It gave each state a different quota for reducing its emissions, allowing states the independence to develop their own plans to meet these requirements. States would have had to submit their ideas by 2016, or 2018 if an extended deadline had been approved. If a state failed to do so, then the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would implement its own plan in that state. States would have had until the year 2022 to actually put their plans in action.

What will happen to the Paris climate agreement?

The Obama Administration’s goal was to bring emission levels to at least 26 percent below 2005 levels by the year 2025. It was announced prior to the 2015 Paris climate talks to show the U.S. commitment to lowering emissions. Following the conference, the U.S. joined almost 200 other involved countries in a pledge to prevent the earth’s temperature from rising more than 2 degrees Celsius, or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit.

Trump’s order gives the EPA the authority to rework the previous plan. But without the previous administration’s policy in place, the United States may not be able to carry out its end of the agreement reached in Paris. Though the White House hasn’t taken an official position on the Paris climate agreement, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt recently called it a “bad deal” and Trump has considered removing the U.S. from the agreement over doubts about the existence of climate change. If Trump follows through with exiting the agreement, the U.S. could end up setting a precedent for other countries to back out of their pledges.

According to the New York Times, Trump’s inner circle is divided over whether or not to remain in the agreement. Trump’s daughter Ivanka and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson are reportedly concerned that withdrawing could damage the U.S.’s relationship with the other countries involved, but senior adviser Steve Bannon wants out.

Will the new policy bring back jobs?

The CPP was not popular with everyone. Two dozen states sued the Obama Administration over concerns that the policy would hurt their coal industries, because it urged states to transition from relying on fossil fuels to relying on natural gas and renewable energy. But Trump’s move won’t necessarily restore many of the jobs lost by coal miners; the mining industry has been on the decline for several years, and humans are being replaced by technology. While Trump’s executive order makes good on many of his campaign promises, it may not garner its intended results.

Victoria Sheridan

Victoria is an editorial intern at Law Street. She is a senior journalism major and French minor at George Washington University. She’s also an editor at GW’s student newspaper, The Hatchet. In her free time, she is either traveling or planning her next trip abroad. Contact Victoria at VSheridan@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump Signs Executive Order to Get Rid of Obama’s Clean Power Plan appeared first on Law Street.

Last month, President Donald Trump criticized China for not doing enough to curtail North Korea’s nuclear program: “China has been taking out massive amounts of money & wealth from the U.S. in totally one-sided trade, but won’t help with North Korea. Nice!” Trump tweeted. China seemed to respond to Trump on Saturday by banning coal imports from North Korea through the rest of the year.

Now, the ball is in Trump’s court. How will he engage the insular, and increasingly insolent, country of North Korea? He had a muted response when it tested a ballistic missile earlier this month. Trump’s willingness to actually engage with North Korea will be tested in March, when a meeting is planned between Pyongyang officials and former U.S. officials in New York. If the White House issues visas for the North Korean officials–it has not explicitly said it will or will not–then that would send a signal that Trump is open to diplomatic engagement, something his predecessor, President Barack Obama, was unwilling to do.

Whether the New York meeting takes place or not, China’s decision to freeze imports of North Korean coal is a decisive action that could weaken its resolve. Aside from being a response to Trump, China’s move is also likely the result of increased frustration at North Korea’s endless stream of provocations. Just last week, the half-brother of North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong-un, was assassinated in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. North Korean officials are suspected as having played a role in the attack.

China’s coal freeze could badly hurt North Korea’s already precarious economy. For one, coal is North Korea’s most lucrative export; it accounts for 34 to 40 percent of its exports, most of which ends up being shipped to China. In response to North Korea’s nuclear test last September, the United Nations Security Council imposed new sanctions that urged China to cap its coal imports from North Korea. But China, fearful that a collapsed North Korea could lead to an influx of refugees and a united Korean peninsula backed by the U.S., has circumvented the UN sanctions. That is, until its announcement on Saturday.

“Imports of coal produced in North Korea — including shipments already declared to the customs but yet to be released — will be suspended for the remainder of this year,” said a statement from China’s Ministry of Commerce. However, a Foreign Ministry official said Tuesday that the move is a bureaucratic procedure, and that China, within the first six weeks of the year, has already reached its annual quota for North Korean coal imports.

A clue to China’s unexpected stiff-arm of North Korean coal came last Friday, when Secretary of State Rex Tillerson met with Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi in Germany. According to State Department spokesman Mark Toner, Tillerson suggested to Yi that China “use all available tools to moderate North Korea’s destabilizing behavior.”

Diplomatic efforts to reign in North Korea’s nuclear ambitions, which have been stretched under Kim Jong-un, have largely failed. Until 2009, China hosted seven-nation talks, which included seats at the table for the U.S., Russia, China, and North Korea. Similar talks, like the one planned for March in New York, have taken place in Kuala Lumpur and Berlin.

But the reclusive country has not budged in ceding its nuclear ambition; it has ramped up its efforts. As the international community–including the U.S. and now, potentially, China–takes a firm stance against North Korea, the question becomes: how long can it continue to provoke without being severely punished?

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post China Bans Coal Imports from North Korea: What Does the Move Mean? appeared first on Law Street.

In the latest attempt to cripple North Korea’s nuclear capabilities, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) imposed new restrictions on its coal export industry. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon called the new sanctions, which were unanimously approved by the 15-member council on Wednesday, “the toughest and most comprehensive” yet.

The sanctions are a direct rebuke to Pyongyang’s largest and most recent nuclear test that occurred in early September. They will aim to trim $700 million from the insulated country’s coal revenues, which UN member-states hope will lead to diplomatic discussions. The sanctions limit North Korea to exporting up to 7.5 million metric tons of coal in 2017, or to bringing in $400 million in revenue, whichever figure is reached first.

“So long as the DPRK makes the choice it has made, which is to pursue the path of violations instead of the path of dialogue, we will continue to work to increase the pressure and defend ourselves and allies from this threat,” said U.S. Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power, referring to the country’s official title, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

China, perhaps even more so than North Korea, will be responsible for ensuring the new sanctions are enforced. As the foremost customer of North Korean coal, and its chief financier and source of aid, China cannot lean on the vague language of previous sanctions to skirt around the new limits. The last round of sanctions, imposed in March, also aimed to curb the country’s coal exports, but with an exception: exports could surpass the imposed limits if they supported “livelihood purposes.”

China used that language as a license to continue importing North Korean coal in copious amounts. In fact, after the sanctions took effect in April, China imported a record amount of coal from its nuclear neighbor. The new sanctions clarified the “livelihood” exception as being reserved only for North Korean citizens.

North Korea responded to the sanctions through its state-controlled Korean Central News Agency. “Obama and his lackeys are sadly mistaken if they calculate that they can force the DPRK to abandon its line of nuclear weaponization and undermine its status as a nuclear power through base sanctions to pressurize it,” the statement said, adding that the sanctions came from the instructions of the U.S. The statement had an ominous conclusion, saying the U.S. will “be held wholly accountable in case the situation on the Korean peninsula and in the region is pushed to an uncontrollable phase.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post UN Hits North Korea with “Toughest” Sanctions Yet Over September Nuclear Test appeared first on Law Street.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) leads the United States environmental community’s fight against power plant emissions. Its main priority? To reduce carbon pollution, which, among other greenhouse gas pollutants, is detrimental to the Earth’s climate and the health of every global citizen. In recent years, the EPA has taken strides like never before to combat unchecked power plants across the country that produce harmful gases into the atmosphere. With the backing of the Obama Administration, environmental efforts are at the forefront of America’s priorities.

 The EPA and Carbon Pollution

What is the EPA?

The Environmental Protection Agency is tasked with protecting human health and the environment by writing and enforcing U.S. regulations based on environmental laws passed by Congress. Nearly half of the EPA budget is directed to grants for state environmental programs, non-profits, educational institutions, and other entities that align with its mission. The EPA also conducts and shares its own scientific studies, sponsors partnerships within the environmental community, and educates the public.

What are carbon pollutants?

According to environmental scientists, carbon pollution is the primary contributor to long-lasting climate disruption. Carbon pollutants and other greenhouse gas pollutants (gases that trap heat in the atmosphere) exacerbate natural weather conditions like floods, wildfires, and droughts and negatively impact human health. Carbon Dioxide (CO₂) makes up nearly three quarters of greenhouse gas emissions worldwide and accounts for 84 percent in the United States. Other greenhouse gases include Methane, Nitrous Oxide, and synthetic fluorinated gases. The severity of damage these pollutants cause to climate depends on the abundance and strength of the gas and duration its duration in the atmosphere. Carbon Dioxide is by far the most abundant and therefore the most dangerous.

CO₂ passes into the atmosphere through “burning fossil fuel (coal, natural gas, and oil), solid waste, trees, and wood products, and also as a result of certain chemical reactions (e.g. manufacture of cement.)” In the natural carbon cycle, CO₂ is removed from the atmosphere through plant absorption. Carbon pollutants alter the natural balance; carbon dioxide is entering the atmosphere at a higher rate than it is leaving.

CO₂ emissions have been on the rise since the Industrial Revolution, but between 1990 and 2013, CO₂ emission increased by seven percent due to energy use and transportation emissions. NASA’s video below shows a visual simulation of CO₂ emissions.

Main Source of Carbon Pollution

Human reliance on electricity is to blame for an estimated 37 percent of CO₂ emissions. Transportation and industry account for most of the rest. The combustion of fossil fuel to create energy is the primary source of carbon emissions. The burning of coal, in particular, emits the most CO₂ compared to oil and gas. Therefore, coal-burning power plants are the leading cause of carbon emissions in the United States.

Coal-fired power plants first burn coal to create extremely fine talcum powder, which is blown into the firebox of the boiler with hot air. The burning coal and air combination creates “the most complete combustion and maximum heat possible.” Water, pumped through the pipes inside the boiler, turns into steam, which can reach 1,000 degrees F and has a pressure of up to 3,500 pounds per square inch. At this point, the steam is piped to the turbine generator where the pressure turns the turbine blades, therefore turning the turbine shaft connected to the generator. Inside the generator, “magnets spin within coils to produce electricity.” Lastly, steam turns back into water inside a condenser.

In a given year, an average 500 megawatt coal-fired electricity plant emits 3.7 million tons of CO₂, 220 tons of hydrocarbons (which creates smog), and 720 tons of poisonous carbon monoxide. This results from burning 1,430,000 tons of coal a year. Aside from carbon emissions, the plant will also release 10,000 tons of sulfur dioxide, 10,200 tons of nitrogen oxide, 125,000 tons of ash, and 225 pounds of arsenic.

Negative Impacts of Carbon Pollutants

According to the EPA, carbon pollution causes rising global temperatures, rising sea level, changes in weather and precipitation patterns, and changes in ecosystems, habitats, and species diversity. High levels of CO₂ can cause an increase or decrease in rainfall depending on location. Rainfall influences agriculture crop yields, water supplies, energy resources, and forest and other ecosystems across the globe.

Carbon pollution causes an increase in heat waves, drought, and smog (ground-level ozone pollution). It can lead to increasing intensity of extreme events, i.e. hurricanes, precipitation, and flooding. It can also increase the “range of ticks and mosquitoes, which can spread disease such as Lyme disease and West Nile virus.” Younger children, those with heart or lung diseases, and people living in poverty could be at risk the most for feeling the effects of climate change.

Laws and Proposed Regulations

The Clean Air Act

One of the first pieces of hard-hitting environmental legislation was the Clean Air Act of 1970, which was most recently revised in 1990. The Clean Air Act authorizes the EPA to establish and enforce National Ambient Quality Standards. The 1990 amendments, led by the Bush Administration, specifically aimed to fight acid rain, urban air pollution, and toxic air emissions. It defines major sources of air pollutants “as a stationary source or group of stationary sources that emit or have the potential to emit 10 tons per year or more of a hazardous air pollutant or 25 tons per year or more of a combination of hazardous air pollutants,” and requires technology-based standards. These standards are referred to as “maximum achievable control technology.

President Obama’s Climate Action Plan

On June 25, 2013, President Obama announced a plan through executive orders to reduce carbon emissions. The President created a list of carbon-reduction targets on the path of decreasing U.S. carbon emissions, preparing and adapting for climate change, and leading the global effort to address the issue. On the domestic front, Obama ordered the EPA to finalize its standards for greenhouse emissions from new and old coal-burning power plants. Although, industry heads have threatened suits if old plants are required to limit emissions.

The executive orders also called for strict standards in fuel efficiency for heavy-duty vehicles after 2018 to minimize greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector. In order to prepare for climate change, Obama’s plan involves federal, state, and local governments working together in order to “increase investments in protective infrastructure.” Weather disasters accumulated $100 billion worth of damages in 2012. Internationally, Obama’s plan includes promoting “the development of a global market for natural gas and continued use of nuclear power.” The plan also calls for the Obama Administration to work with U.S. trading partners to discuss negotiations at the World Trade Organization to advocate free trade in environmental goods/services and cleaner energy technologies.

Clean Power Plan

The EPA’s proposed Clean Power Plan, released in June 2014, sets state-by-state carbon emissions rate-reduction targets. The plan calls for a 30 percent reduction of 2005 carbon emission levels by 2030. The plan provides alternative plans called “building blocks” to cut carbon emissions. Some of these building blocks include: renewable energy sources, nuclear power, efficiency improvements at individual fossil fuel plants, shifting generation from coal to natural gas, and greater energy efficiency in buildings and industries. Targets per state range due to individual states’ “mix of electricity-generation resources…technological feasibilities, costs, and emissions reduction potentials of each building block.”

After comments and revisions, the plan is expected to be finalized in August 2015. The EPA anticipates a long run of legal challenges to the Clean Power Plan from coal-producing industry heads. The Obama Administration and EPA saw its first legal win last week on June 9. The suit was brought by some of the nation’s largest coal companies and 14 coal-producing states claiming the plan would jeopardize future construction of coal plants and slow U.S. coal demand. One of the lawyers leading the suit is Lawrence H. Tribe, a Harvard University constitutional law scholar and former law school mentor to President Obama. The courts, for now, have dismissed the case as premature. As Judge Brett Kavanaugh explained in the opinion, “They want us to do something that they candidly acknowledge we have never done before: review the legality of a proposed rule.” Although delayed, opposition will fight another day.

Conclusion

The future holds the final decisions from the courts regarding the Clean Power Plan. Some challenges will more than likely make their way up to the U.S. Supreme Court. It will be a tough battle for the environmental community, but it is one for the health of our Earth and everyone on it. The negative impacts of greenhouse gas emissions, especially Carbon Dioxide, aren’t theories. They are facts and we have to face reality. Although no plan can reverse the damage that has already been done, we can prevent future damage from taking place. It is truly an international issue that needs international cooperation, but it starts domestically, and hopefully the United States will be the leader it needs to be in environmental conservation.

Resources

Primary

EPA: Carbon Dioxide Emissions

EPA: 1990 Clean Air Act Amendment Summary 

EPA: Summary of the Clean Air Act

Additional

CFC: Obama Vows to Finalize Carbon Standards, Other Safeguards in Climate Change Plan

DESMOG: Facts on the Pollution Caused by the U.S. Coal Industry

Duke Energy: How do Power Plants Work?

EPA: Learn About Carbon Pollution From Power Plants

EPA: Our Mission and What We Do

EPA: Overview of Greenhouse Gases

The New York Times: Court Gives Obama a Climate Change Win

Union of Concerned Scientists: The Clean Power Plan

Jessica McLaughlin

Jessica McLaughlin is a graduate of the University of Maryland with a degree in English Literature and Spanish. She works in the publishing industry and recently moved back to the DC area after living in NYC. Contact Jessica at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Power Plants and Carbon Pollution: What Can the EPA Do? appeared first on Law Street.

Recently, Governor Andrew Cuomo officially announced that New York State will ban fracking. Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, is a process of extracting natural gas that involves injecting water, sand, and a combination of chemicals underground on site in order to fracture the shale rock and release the gas. A highly controversial topic, Cuomo’s decision was controversial as well–he was met with both praise and criticism from a highly divided demographic. However, the move to ban fracking is a strongly defensible choice, and the arguments against the ban do not hold up well under scrutiny.

For example, natural gas has been lauded as a solution to American foreign oil dependence. In the wake of ongoing turbulent relationships with the Middle East and oil rich nations therein, many suggest that the large deposits of natural gas within the borders of the United States is a possible means of alleviating the country’s need to import oil from them. But is such a complex plan of developing an elaborate and brand new energy industry the most logical solution to problems in international relations? Rather than go about this process in order to avoid dealing with these tense situations, why not attempt more diplomacy in hopes of alleviating them? Oil and natural gas aside, it would not be such a bad thing to genuinely pursue better relationships with Middle East countries. Hiding behind the energy industry as an excuse is not a sustainable argument.

Others argue that natural gas is cleaner than oil. Natural gas emissions byproducts are lower and less damaging than those of oil, and it is of a substantial energy density so as to sufficiently provide power to our machines and devices. However we should not be tempted by the quick, convenient, and immediate solution. It will still cause problems and will run out eventually. This argument comes back to renewable energy. There is plenty of potential and increased economic accessibility to renewable energy, which is cleaner than natural gas and will not run out. Thinking purely in terms of energy requirements, we do not need natural gas.

Aside from geopolitics and national scale energy needs, some tie natural gas and fracking directly to the benefit of people on the ground. There is an American cultural identity tied into coal and mining towns. It is a widely applicable occupation, providing employment to individuals and income for families. Coal mining is a means of asserting ones identity, and has often been passed down through generations. Fracking is a technology intensive process demanding expertise and consequently cannot be undertaken by anybody. Arguments that fracking provides economic opportunities for towns in which shale is located are shaky. Unlike coal, where the industry arrives on site and hires locals to pursue the mining, fracking companies often bring in outside workers to extract the gas; the residents of the town rarely benefit from the boom.

A fracking site. Courtesy of Casey Hugelfink via Flickr.

Some people of a financially minded nature have suggested that the moratorium represents a transfer of economic resources from farmers to environmentalists. Residents of southern New York State are now unable to receive royalties from resource development and gas mining. Tim Worstall, the author of a fiscally conservative Forbes Magazine article on the topic, suggests that the environmentalists are being granted their desires and benefits at a cost which is the loss of acquisition of desires and benefits for the people who could receive money for fracking on their land. He proposes a hypothetical situation that in order to maintain a balanced public policy, environmentalists should literally pay homeowners their losses for not fracking. He is of strong opinion that this would be met with high resistance, in demonstration of his point that this process is unfair.

No doubt this scenario represents a substantial portion of the controversy over fracking. However the author is thinking of benefits and losses purely from an economic standpoint. On the one occasion that he might be considering the state of the environment, he refers to environmentalists’ interest in preventing fracking in “the fair state of New York”. In this sense it is an aesthetic issue. Interestingly enough, there is little in the way of aesthetic damage when it comes to fracking, although it does turn small farm towns into industrial sties. Then there is the catastrophic side effect of increased likelihood of earthquakes. However, environmentalists’ resistance to fracking is very much motivated by human health concerns. The primary problem with fracking is that the myriad of chemicals injected into the rock seeps into the groundwater. This can be damaging to the human body when consumed, potentially causing neurological disorders, birth defects and cancers, and is most visibly linked to flaming faucets. The volume of chemicals is so high that water can literally catch fire. The documentary Gasland delves further into these issues and additional dangers of the industry and refineries. Here is a trailer:

Flaming faucets and contaminated drinking water are most common for homeowners in close proximity to the fracking site. Namely, those on whose land the fracking will take place. Here is a major cost for which the author of the Forbes article does not account.

Produced water is the mix of chemicals, metals, and carcinogens that comes up during the fracking process. In some New York counties, produced water has been used as a de-icer, sprinkled across roadways throughout the winter. Then it runs off into streams and waterways. This is dangerous for fish and local wildlife that live nearby, as well as for humans who drink that water. This increases the range of contamination from near to the fracking site to across the entire state. It is a misuse of a substance that should not exist in the first place.

Considering the long list of potential alternatives for meeting our energy needs, we do not need natural gas. Furthermore, considering all the problems associated with the current method of extracting it, we certainly do not need fracking.

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Is the New York Fracking Moratorium a Good Thing? appeared first on Law Street.