Last week’s top stories on Law Street covered Canadian anti-vaccine parents’ guilty verdict in son’s meningitis death, the best legal tweets of the week, and Colorado’s supreme court striking down Fort Collins’ five-year fracking moratorium. In case you missed it, check out the top stories below.

1. Anti-Vaccine Parents Found Guilty of Not Providing ‘Necessaries of Life’

The parents of 19-month-old Ezekiel Stephen were found guilty of letting their child die after he contracted bacterial meningitis in 2012. David Stephan, 32, and Collet Stephan, 36, who live in Lethbridge, Alberta in Canada, walked out of an emotional courtroom Tuesday after hearing their fate. They won’t, however, be held in custody, and will return to court in June for their sentencing hearing. Read the full article here.

2. Best Legal Tweets of the Week

Check out Law Street Media’s roundup of the best legal tweets of the week. Read the full article here.

3. Colorado’s High Court Deals Blow to Towns’ Efforts to Freeze Fracking

Beneath Colorado’s Front Range–a stretch of the Rocky Mountains in the center of the state–billions of cubic feet of natural gas have been bubbling for millions of years. Above ground, the state’s supreme court ruled on Monday to overturn measures put in place by Fort Collins and Longmont–two towns that sit atop the reserves–to prevent fracking within the limits of their municipalities. Read the full article here.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

Beneath Colorado’s Front Range–a stretch of the Rocky Mountains in the center of the state–billions of cubic feet of natural gas have been bubbling for millions of years. Above ground, the state’s supreme court ruled on Monday to overturn measures put in place by Fort Collins and Longmont–two towns that sit atop the reserves–to prevent fracking within the limits of their municipalities.

A lawsuit brought by the Colorado Oil and Gas Association to a lower court ended up invalidating both cities’ anti-fracking measures, and following an appeal by Fort Collins and Longmont, the case moved to the state’s high court.

The court overturned Fort Collins’s five-year freeze of fracking within its city limits, issuing the following statement:

“The supreme court concludes that Fort Collins’s five-year moratorium on fracking and the storage of fracking waste within the city is a matter of mixed state and local concern and, therefore, is subject to preemption by state law.”

Similarly, the fracking ban established by Longmont in 2012 was deemed “invalid and unenforceable.”

“Applying well-established preemption principles, the supreme court concludes that the City of Longmont’s ban on fracking and the storage and disposal of fracking wastes within its city limits operationally conflicts with applicable state law,” Justice Richard Gabriel wrote.

Colorado state law does not prohibit fracking, though the practice is regulated, and is among the most transparent in the country. State law also maintains the state’s authority in instances where a local government moves to push litigation involving the oil and gas industries.

Unsurprisingly, energy industry advocates were encouraged by the court’s ruling while conservationists were incensed.

“Oil and gas is ready to stand up for Colorado consumers and for Colorado’s place in the American energy renaissance,” Colorado Petroleum Council director Tracee Bentley told the Denver Post.

Conservation Colorado director Pete Maysmith expressed disappointment, advocating for “ground up” policymaking.

“Local governments should have the ability to call a timeout on drilling in order to better understand its impacts and ensure safety and public health,” he said.

While Monday’s ruling prohibits Fort Collins and Longmont from halting the practice of fracking, other Front Range towns voted for and still maintain regulatory measures (but not full force bans) for fracking on their land, namely Boulder and Lafayette.

As the demand for natural gas rises, it’ll be interesting to see how other states handle local attempts to regulate the potentially unsafe methods of natural gas extraction.

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 Colorado’s High Court Deals Blow to Towns’ Efforts to Freeze Fracking appeared first on Law Street.

We all know that BP’s Deepwater Horizon oil spill in April, 2010 was one of the worst spills to date. But the accident continues to have ramifications and inflict damage on the terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems there. In light of these findings, advocates are hoping to address cleanup and drilling policies and procedures and hope to make improvements or change the practices entirely.

A place called Cat Island in Louisiana used to be a major nesting ground for multiple species of birds. The oil spill poisoned the vegetation there, which has continued to die off. In so doing, the root system disappeared, leaving the soil vulnerable to erosion. In fact, over the past five years the island in its entirety has all but disappeared. The birds that nest there have it imprinted in their DNA to do so; it is instinctual to go there and nest. If the island disappears, they will not seek out a new site, they simply will not breed. Although the species may have survived the initial spill, they still face severe threats to their survival. As it stands, the reduced surface area of the island has increased competition and lessened available real estate for nests; essentially, they reproduce in fewer numbers already.

The extent of the Deepwater Horizon spill. Image courtesy of SkyTruth via Flickr

While birds and their black oil slick-covered feathers may be one of the most visible manifestations of a spill, additional long term studies have demonstrated that many types of fish are threatened in more indirect ways as well. Oil damage can cause birth defects and irregularly shaped or mis-beating hearts in baby fish. This means that they can die younger, or can suffer due to a lessened ability to catch prey or escape from becoming prey themselves. Some of these conclusions have come from long term studies following up on the Exxon Valdez spill in 1989. Pacific herring, for example, collapsed in the Prince William Sound in 1993 and have not returned. As always, this is problematic not just for the sake of saving fish and bird lives, but because these species play intricate roles in the health of very complicated ecosystems. The Pacific salmon run is vital to bear populations and the quality of the dense Northwestern forests themselves. In addition, fishing and economic interests are at stake for people who work in those industries.

The process of marine snow involves organic matter such as phytoplankton drifting down from the upper layers of the sea into the depths. This is an aspect of transferring energy and photosynthesized material from the sunlight rich surface to the darker waters, and serves as an important link in the food chain. But when oil is introduced, it fuses to these particles and finds its way to the deep water in what is called a dirty blizzard. This means that an oil spill does not just glide across the surface of the water and endanger creatures near the top, but more deeply affects ocean life. More living things are endangered as they are coated in a layer of oil. In addition, limited human access to these regions means that this aspect of a spill is much more difficult to clean up.

Damage extends far beyond what is visible at the surface. Image courtesy of Green Fire Productions via Flickr

These three studies are among many that catalogue the long term damage inflicted by the Deepwater Horizon spill. Because the results may influence what BP will be required to continue to pay in damages, the company has disputed the validity of them all.

Researchers at the University of Wisconsin recently released a series of papers detailing studies that produced an oil repellant material. In one test, they coated wire with the material and then poured on a mixture of water and motor oil. The water ran off and the oil clumped together, easily removed. The presumed application of this discovery is that it will make clean ups of oil spills easier. Yet there are two ways in which this breakthrough falls short. The first is that while cleaning up a spill may be easier and faster, that does not detract from the damage that it may inflict when it occurs. Secondly, it would be best not to think of it as a get out of jail free card, in the same manner that some seem to think that recent proposals regarding climate engineering mean that we can continue with our ways and inflict as much damage as we please because we can presumably go back and repair it later. Rather, we need to address the problem at its source.

Are we supposed to coat all manners of wildlife with oil repellant material? Image courtesy of Louisiana GOHSEP via Flickr

The Obama administration is about to establish new safety regulations for offshore drilling. Over the course of the previous five years, other responses to the BP spill have included new standards for the casings of wells. This, being the third safety proposal since the incident, would deal with measures to prevent blowouts. These moves are intended to prevent an accident like Deepwater Horizon from occurring again, especially since the administration has been reviewing proposals to begin further offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and in the Chukchi Sea off the coast of Alaska. But an investigative panel determined that the chief cause of the Deepwater spill was not the blowout but a wide ranging occurrence of oversights and improper adherence to regulations. Thus the very process by which offshore drilling is pursued is flawed and in need of revamping. But is this the true source of the problem either? As a spokesman for the Natural Resource Defense Council stated, “Industry and government have taken measures over the past five years to reduce some of the risk in what is an inherently dangerous operation at sea. that’s a far cry from saying it’s safe…”

A 2013 spill burns near New Orleans. Image courtesy DVIDSHUB via Flickr

Thus the very nature of offshore drilling is a problem, and going back further still, our continuing reliance on fossil fuels is a problem. As oil pipelines continue to burst and fracking continues to contaminate water, offshore drilling and the environmental risks therein are yet another manifestation of some of the things in need of complete change, not just tweaking or improvement.

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 Long Term Damage from Oil Spills Shows Need for Changes appeared first on Law Street.

Could your surroundings impact your health as much as your diet, genetics, and lifestyle? The field of environmental health seeks to understand how the natural and manmade elements of our homes, work, and leisure environments impact health. To understand environmental impacts on health, experts examine a tremendous range of factors from community noise levels to the availability of public parks; some even look at dust.

I know that seems strange, because when you look at dust, I’m sure you probably see nothing but unsightly grime that makes you sneeze. But when researchers at the California Department of Toxic Substances Control look at dust, they see a possible indicator of chemicals people might be exposed to from various synthetic materials commonly found in homes.

Dust holds clues to multiple facets of your domestic life. Companies use an array of chemicals, including flame retardants, to manufacture your appliances, furniture, and even curtains. Your appliances, furniture, and curtains also contribute to the powdery detritus obscuring your coffee table. Dust offers researchers a way to investigate the holistic chemical composition of the average home atmosphere, all from the contents of a vacuum cleaner.

So why do we spend time studying dust and hundreds of other tiny environmental factors? Well, the experts in the University of Michigan video below estimate that 25-33 percent of disease globally stems from our environments. If we understood what specifically caused that percentage, we could take the first steps toward developing interventions.

With so many aspects to consider, it’s hard to make a solid connection between one environmental factor and a health outcome. But solid connections do make for golden evidence in influencing policy decisions that promote better health outcomes. A relatively new science called biomonitoring could help environmental health scientists make those golden connections by linking a pollutant directly to a health problem.

What is biomonitoring?

Biomonitoring quantifies bodily absorption of pollutants by measuring chemical amounts in human specimens like blood or urine. In the dust example mentioned above, researchers could incorporate biomonitoring by comparing the chemical composition of dust samples with the chemical levels present in residents’ blood or urine samples. This would allow them to look beyond what chemicals are present and find out if people are actually absorbing them, since atmospheric presence doesn’t automatically indicate absorption.

For example, an elemental mercury spill in a Massachusetts school caused panic when air samples revealed high mercury vapor air levels after the initial clean up. The Massachusetts Department of Public Health responded to the panic by offering urine tests. It turned out they had nothing to worry about–none of the samples indicated elevated urine mercury levels.

We worry about chemical levels in the environment because of what they might be doing to human health, but they need to be absorbed in order to cause harm. Environmental health scientists can bypass the need to study the presence of environmental pollutants one by one, by using biomonitoring to directly assess human impact. Outside of individual cases, cross-population biomonitoring data could reveal locations with disproportionate chemical exposures, a red flag that something fishy is going on.

According to the Association of Public Health Laboratories, manufacturers in the United States use more than 100,000 chemicals, yet we don’t understand what they could all do to human health. Combine this uncertainty with the rise of chronic diseases and you have a concerned public that demands many answers. Biomonitoring strives to find out which of these 100,000 chemicals make it into our bodies so we can figure out what to do about it.

How can biomonitoring affect health policy?

In the 1970s when researchers discovered that lead exposure could cause serious health problems, the U.S. implemented laws to bar it from many products like food cans, paint, and gasoline. Biomonitoring through blood testing has confirmed decreased blood lead levels since the laws were enacted, but also pointed out that low income and minority children still have levels above the CDC safe reference value, with lead in housing being the major source. After hearing these results, officials looked to housing policies as a way to decrease the problem:

• The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) required landlords to disclose lead hazards in all residences built before 1978.
• HUD made lead safety mandatory for federally funded housing and created grants for removing lead hazards from current buildings.
• The EPA began regulating painting and repair practices in all residences built before 1978.

These efforts achieved lower levels of lead hazards in government-funded housing, but did little to decrease levels in low-income or non-assisted housing.

At the state level, officials focused on finding children with elevated blood lead levels and then tried to remove lead from their environments. Some states, including Maryland, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island, implemented more prevention-based laws, but many still struggle with compliance.

To respond to a high concentration of children with elevated blood lead levels, Philadelphia officials combined public health with law in the Philadelphia Lead Court. The court was designed to increase compliance of city health codes related to lead hazards. If the court hears of a lead hazard, it issues an order to the property owner to remedy the situation. If they don’t complete hazard control activities, they’re sent to the Lead Court.

Before the court, property owners complied with lead regulations seven percent of the time. After the court was established, the compliance rate spiked to 77 percent.

These intervention successes were made possible through biomonitoring, and the connections between health and a contaminant that it revealed.

Biomonitoring and Fracking

Hydraulic fracturing (or fracking), a new and unconventional method for extracting natural gas, poses a possible health hazard to the people who live closest to fracking wells. Self reports show a disproportionate amount of respiratory problems like itchy eyes, coughing, and nose bleeds among people living near fracking wells.

Read More: Fracking is Short-Sighted in Light of Temporary U.S. Oil Boom

In this New Haven Register article, researcher Dr. Peter Rabinowitz summarizes the limitations of this self-reported data:

It’s more of an association than a causation. We want to make sure people know it’s a preliminary study. … To me it strongly indicates the need to further investigate the situation and not ignore it.

Use of biomonitoring in this instance could provide more clarity on which chemicals are present and could be causing health problems in the residents. A doctor from Aspen Integrative Health in Colorado has already tested some people who live close to drilling sites for chemical exposures. His results showed some elevated levels, but didn’t provide any conclusive links. The results could serve as a baseline comparison for other communities wishing to test residents.

The new federal rules on fracking don’t include any biomonitoring measures, but they take small steps toward understanding the possible health effects of fracking by requiring more care and accountability from drilling companies. Per the new rules, government workers can inspect fracking wells for safety, companies will have to tell the public what chemicals they use in their extraction processes, and companies will have to abide by new rules on chemical storage and disposal of flowback water.

Making Connections

The future of our health depends on our ability to make connections as we constantly introduce new chemicals into our lives through food, construction, manufacturing, and more. Environmental health scientists, supplemented by biomonitoring, work to make those connections in the hope that their findings will result in legal and policy decisions that keep people healthy.

Daunting as achieving these connections may be, daily advances, like this new University of Miami instrument to detect atmospheric mercury, bring us closer to understanding the interaction of our environment and our health. If we encourage advances in biomonitoring and other new technologies, all the vague correlations of the past could become solid connections.

Resources

 Primary

Environmental Health Perspectives: Proximity to Natural Gas Wells and Reported Health Status: Results of a Household Survey in Washington County, Pennsylvania

The Network for Public Health Law: Environmental Public Health

Additional

Association of Public Health Laboratories: Biomonitoring: Analysis of Human Exposure to Chemicals

Association of Public Health Laboratories: Measuring For Potentially Dangerous Chemicals

Public Health Law Research: Local Housing Policy Approaches to Preventing Childhood Lead Poisoning

Public Health Law Research: Public Health and Law Collaboration: The Philadelphia Lead Court Study

Public Health Law Research: Philadelphia’s Lead Court is Making a Difference

Association of Public Health Laboratories Blog: Biomonitoring and the Public Health Laboratory: Everything You Want to Know

Association of Public Health Laboratories: Biomonitoring: An Integral Component of Public Health Practice

EurekAlert: Researchers Develop New Instrument to Monitor Atmospheric Mercury

The New York Times: New Federal Rules Are Set For Fracking

Washington Post: Obama Administration Tightens Federal Rules on Oil and Gas Fracking

NPR: Interior Department Issues New Federal Rules On ‘Fracking’

The Network for Public Health Law: Environmental Public Health

Ashley Bell

Ashley Bell communicates about health and wellness every day as a non-profit Program Manager. She has a Bachelor’s degree in Business and Economics from the College of William and Mary, and loves to investigate what changes in healthy policy and research might mean for the future. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Biomonitoring: A New Way to Look at Health Policy appeared first on Law Street.

One of the arguments in favor of hydraulic fracturing, commonly known as fracking, is that it has largely enabled the recent oil boom in the United States. Vast stores of shale oil and natural gas are now accessible in large quantities and in short spans of time. Prices at the pump and dependence on the Middle East and OPEC are both down, and domestic industries are up. Yet the key concept in the term “boom” is that it is temporary; the United States must realize that, as with any nonrenewable resource, reservoirs will eventually deplete and we will be back to square one. In the meantime, a vast web of pipelines is being constructed to accommodate for the surge and the necessity to transport the product. This raises an additional set of concerns, namely for the health of the environment.

The wells from which all this liquid gold now flows are a fraction in size to most of the ones in the Middle East. Projections suggest that domestic oil production may plateau as soon as in the next few years, and begin to decline by 2020. Thus the boom is more like a flash in the pan. Being that the oil reserves of just a handful of Middle Eastern nations total more than forty times that of the United States, the latter nation would be wise to retain productive dialogues and relationships with the former, as it is likely that the previous course of trade will resume in due time. It would be unfortunate if the United States burned some bridges in the excitement of its boom, only to find quickly that it is once more dependent on imports. Policy and national behavior are tightly tied into these environmental realities.

In the meantime, it has become necessary to bolster the infrastructure for delivering domestic oil throughout the country. Among the environmentally motivated criticisms of fracking are heavy truck traffic and volatile oil trains. North Dakota, the site of the Bakken Oil Fields fueling the boom, has endured a spike in spills, explosions, and other dangerous missteps over the last few years as production and transportation of the product has increased. It has done so in a haphazard and unregulated fashion, focused more on economic expansion than safety. A primary source of these accidents is a complicated and growing network of pipelines that have sidestepped federal inspection.

In addition to the ongoing controversy regarding the Keystone XL Pipeline, many smaller ones are being approved and constructed throughout the country. New Jersey has recently been faced with proposals to construct a slew of pipelines throughout the state. As with many states in the path of Keystone XL, New Jersey would not directly benefit from the lines, as it serves simply as a crossroads that bears all the burdens and risks. These pipes will not create new jobs or bolster the local economy.

A resolution to oppose the proposed Pilgrim Pipeline in the Northern Valley was recently voted down. If constructed, it would likely run through ecologically sensitive areas and near local water supplies. In the event of a leak or spill, which despite claims that these pipes meet safety standards is more likely than one might expect due to the explosive nature of the particular oil that they will transport, water would be contaminated and difficult to purify.

Courtesy of Mark Klotz via Flickr.

A North Jersey politician who is a proponent of the Pilgrim Pipeline indicated that arguments of the nature that the line will not directly benefit New Jersey are not sufficient because lines that run through other states help bring oil here. While this may be true, it is not persuasive for several reasons. The first is that it throws others under the bus; we enjoy that there are pipes bringing oil here and benefitting us and our economy, while those states bear heavy social and ecological risks to do so and this is presumably all acceptable. Next, complex routes of ecological motion are endangered and still threaten us. For example, another pipe will soon be constructed to bring fracked natural gas from Pennsylvania to New Jersey. Many are concerned with the possible threats this line will pose for the Delaware River, whose water is vital for the variegated regional biodiversity as well as residents over a wide geography. Thus whether a pipe runs through New Jersey to elsewhere, or in from somewhere else, threatens more complications than a localized leak. Finally, the enthusiasm for oil pipelines simply encourages too much economic investment in and social reliance on oil. The domestic boom will die out sooner than later; all these new pipelines will become useless, while in the meantime they present a surge of dangers.

A pipeline running through ecologically sensitive Alaska. Courtesy of US Geological Survey via Flickr.

Once more, investment in renewable energies is a more desirable option, as their production, delivery, and use is far less hazardous and much cleaner, and more realistically intertwined with the United States’ energy and economic future.

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 Fracking is Shortsighted in Light of Temporary U.S. Oil Boom 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.

Fracking. The word is thrown around in newspapers, in political debates, in discussions about the future of our global climate change problem. But what does it actually mean? What effect does it have on our environment and economy? Is it even legal? Read on to learn about fracking, the legal framework in place to permit it, and the arguments about the practice.

What is fracking?

Fracking–more scientifically referred to as hydraulic fracking–is the injection of fluids, including water and toxic chemicals into oil and gas wells at high pressure in order to extract the gas and oil. The fluids are projected at the earth with such strong force that it creates cracks from which the gas or oil can freely flow. It mirrors the hydraulic fractures can happen in the earth naturally.

What’s the law on fracking?

The Energy Policy Act of 2005, passed by Congress on July 29, 2005 and signed into law by President George W. Bush on August 8, 2005, is “an act to ensure jobs for our future with secure, affordable, and reliable energy.” It provides incentives for diversifying sources of energy production. This includes ensuring increased use of biofuel with gasoline, requiring the Department of Energy (DOE) to study and report on already existent natural gases, and providing tax breaks and guaranteed loans for making energy conservation improvements to homes.

While fracking was not protected under the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the Halliburton Loophole is the nickname for the ability to frack under the Act. Under President Bush and Vice President Cheney, the EPA created an exemption in order to allow hydraulic fracturing (fracking) to be legal.

The exemption is on page 102, Section 322 in the EPA.

SEC. 322. HYDRAULIC FRACTURING.
Paragraph (1) of section 1421(d) of the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300h(d)) is amended to read as follows:
‘‘(1) UNDERGROUND INJECTION.—The term ‘underground injection’—
‘‘(A) means the subsurface emplacement of fluids by well injection; and
‘‘(B) EXCLUDES—
‘‘(i) the underground injection of natural gas for purposes of storage; and
‘‘(ii) the underground injection of fluids or propping agents (other than diesel fuels) pursuant to hydraulic fracturing operations related to oil, gas, or geothermal production activities.’’

There are no regulations that require documenting the chemicals used during fracking, or their possible health or environmental effects. As a result, multiple states, the most recent being California, have passed laws to create fracking regulations. In 2011, Texas became the first state requiring companies to disclose the chemicals being used.

What’s the argument against current regulations on fracking?

Many argue that these state regulations still lack crucial information that all residents should know about. Additionally, certain state regulations and laws have trade secrets that keep important information about different chemicals from the public. The Clean Water Act found 32 million gallons of diesel fuel illegally injected into the earth during fracking.  Evidence indicates that over six hundred different chemicals are used to frack. The popular HBO documentary Gasland 2 shows footage of Dimock, Pennsylvania where faucet water could be lit on fire because of contamination due to fracking. Many argue that the government should restrict the use of at least certain chemicals used in the process, or at the very least, require companies to state what materials they are using.

What’s the argument in favor of current regulations on fracking?

Fracking supporters argue that it is economically beneficial to the country. The IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates reported that fracking “supported 2.1 million jobs, added almost $75 billion in federal and state revenue, contributed $283 billion to the gross domestic product, and lifted household income by more than $1,200.” Fracking has promised us affordable and clean natural gas to help combat the foreign fuels we have now. Approximately 20 to 30 billion barrels of natural gas and oil have been recovered due to fracking. Currently, there is no other technology that retrieves natural gas and oil in places from places that fracking can reach.

Conclusion

Fracking has entered the national discourse as a possibly effective way to get some non-renewable resources that are available but difficult to reach. The regulations over whether or not we can use fracking to reach oil and gas resources have evolved over time, but they have done very little to stem the greater debate about the environmental and economical impacts of the process.

Resources

Primary

U.S. Congress: The Energy Policy Act of 2005

Additional

FracFocus: Chemical Disclosure Registry

Clean Water Action: Fracking Laws and Loopholes

Independent Voter Network: Middle Ground is Possible for Debate on Fracking in America

State Impact: Pennsylvania’s Disclosure Rules: What the Frack’s in the Ground

Slate: Who’s Fracking in Your Backyard?

EnergyFromShale.org: Pioneering America’s Energy Future

Real Clear Politics: The Breathtaking Benefits of Fracking

Reason.com: The Promised Land of Fracking

American Enterprise Institute: Benefits of Hydraulic Fracking

Elsevier: Fracking–The Pros and Cons 

Economist: Fracking

Inhabitat: The Costs and Benefits of Fracking

Huffington Post: Fracking Pros and Cons–Weighing in on Hydraulic Fracturing

Environmental Protection Agency: EPA Announces Final Study Plan to Asses Hydraulic Fracturing

—

Nicole Counts is a freelance writer, activist, and lover of books. She is graduate of Temple University with a BA in English and she lives in New York City. Contact Nicole at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [greensefa via Flickr]

Law Street Media Staff

Law Street Media Staff posts are written by the team at Fastcase and Law Street Media

The post Fracking and the Environment appeared first on Law Street.

The world has a complicated relationship with non-renewable resources. Large chunks of these resources are controlled by just a few countries. The United States has long worried about its ability to help our allies obtain these resources. One proposed way has been to pass the Domestic Prosperity and Global Freedom Act. Read on to learn about the underlying energy crisis, and the arguments for and against this legislation.

Background of the Domestic Prosperity and Global Freedom Act

As the Ukrainian crisis continues to wage on, the question of oil dependence has emerged as a relevant and pressing issue that could impact geopolitical events. Currently, Russia provides one third of Western Europe’s natural gas, and an even higher percentage of Eastern Europe’s, leaving countries such as Ukraine locked under the power of Russian oil prices. As oil and gas prices rise as a result of political tensions in the region, these countries will look to import their natural gas from other sources, hoping that wider options in the market will drive prices down for their manufacturing and private sectors.

Meanwhile, the United States currently has large reserves of natural gas that amount to more than enough for domestic consumption for the foreseeable future. The natural assumption here would be to export US natural gas to these countries seeking independence from Russian energy. However, in order to export natural gas, it must be processed and liquefied at cryogenic temperatures, creating a liquid that can be shipped. The application process for creating export facilities that create Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG), which must pass through both the Department of Energy (DOE) and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), is convoluted and delayed; only seven applications have been approved since 2011, with 24 applications still pending.

The Domestic Prosperity and Global Freedom Act, approved by the House Energy and Commerce Committee and through the House in full, would remove these restrictions by federal agencies and expedite the process for approving applications for the construction of LNG export facilities. However, fierce opposition has risen against this bill. Opponents argue that the bill will inadvertently raise domestic oil and gas prices while providing funding to energy production methods that wreak havoc on natural environments.

What’s the argument for the legislation?

The goal of the act is clear: provide Ukraine with American natural gas, thus breaking their dependence on Russia for energy and balancing the scale of global power in region. Until former satellite nations are able to break their dependence on Russian energy, many argue, Russia will be able to economically, and therefore politically, control these countries. The U.S. State Department recently announced, “The United States is taking immediate steps to assist Ukraine, including the provision of emergency finance and technical assistance in the areas of energy security, energy efficiency, and energy sector reform.” This, in short, is an announcement that US natural gas reserves will be shipped to Ukraine in order to regulate the balance of power that has tipped in that region.

Exporting US natural gas to these areas would, advocates argue, create a number of benefits for the United States and its citizens, in addition to benefits for Ukraine. The act would make the US the world’s top producer of natural gas, thus reinstating America’s dominance in energy production and improving its trade deficit. Shipping natural gas overseas requires the construction and operation of natural gas liquefaction installations, which could create roughly 450,000 jobs by 2025. The main impediment to the export of natural gas, which the bill addresses, is the application process for constructing these new facilities. Both the DOE and FERC have to sign off on any natural gas liquefaction projects, where environmental factors, the LNG buyers’ Free Trade Agreement status, public interest, and a number of other factors must be taken into account. During the FERC phase of the approval, over 20 government agencies become involved in the review process, creating a bottleneck effect in the long line of applications. Advocates argue that this act, designed to expedite this review process and enable LNG buyers to begin exporting American natural gas, will strengthen both America’s economy and the economy of nations such as Ukraine that are heavily dependent on Russian energy.

What’s the argument against the legislation?

Opponents, however, argue that the infrastructure required to ship gas to Ukraine has not yet been built, making it years before any gas would actually reach Ukraine (which, coincidentally, does not have any LNG import facilities, as it gets almost all of its natural gas via pipeline from Russia). Approving applications now to construct LNG export facilities, opponents state, is a long-term solution to an immediate problem. Many believe that exporting natural gas reserves would also negatively impact the US economy in a number of ways, creating more economic problems than the current geopolitical situation is worth. Some experts believe exporting America’s natural gas reserves will increase domestic gas prices, which have been kept low, internationally speaking, by its abundant reserves. Exporting natural gas and creating scarcity would drive up domestic oil and gas prices, hurting commercial interests and everyday consumers. This would also stifle what many refer to as the “American manufacturing renaissance” that has been occurring as a direct result of these gas reserves.

The great quantity of easily accessible natural gas has drawn energy-intensive companies to the U.S. to invest in manufacturing facilities across the country. Recently 97 energy-intensive chemical manufacturing companies invested roughly $72 billion in the U.S., spurring job growth and economic strength. Opponents argue that it is this type of economic growth that America must seek, instead of distant, fleeting profits from the sale of our natural gas. Were America’s natural gas to be exported, rising energy prices and a growing scarcity of domestic energy would smother the manufacturing renaissance and would place economic growth in the unstable hands of the oil and gas industry, instead of the diversified and profitable chemical manufacturing industry.

Lastly, opponents have been joined by environmental advocates who have voiced their concern over the environmental impacts of increased drilling and exportation of American natural gas. If the demand for natural gas export increases, opponents argue, then the demand for natural gas would also increase, which would lead to expanded drilling projects using controversial methods such as fracking to extract more natural gas. The construction of LNG export facilities and expanded drilling projects would also place more wildlife areas at risk that environmentalists have struggled to protect. The pressure for more natural gas recovery would also lead to increased carbon emissions and higher risks of spills and accidents that could dramatically damage an ecological area. Instead, many economic experts argue that the US should export drilling technology and raw materials to countries such as Ukraine to enable them to produce their own natural gas and free themselves from the bonds of Russian energy. In this way, the US could immediately profit from international trade and provide economic aid to its ally, the Ukraine.

Conclusion

The Domestic Prosperity and Global Freedom Act passed the House this summer, and now is waiting in the Senate. While the bill is subject to much debate, it does begin to deal with the question of how nonrenewable resources are transferred internationally, and the political implications that accompany such transfers.

Resources

Primary

U.S. House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee: Domestic Prosperity and Global Freedom Act

Additional

Fuel Fix: U.S. LNG Exports Could Ensure European Energy Security

Energy Collective: Exporting U.S. LNG to Prized Non-FTA Countries: Bottlenecks in the Approval Process

Oregon Catalyst: Walden Presses Obama to Stop Natural Gas Export Delays

Roll Call: LNG Exports: An Opportunity For America

Deseret News: Liquid Natural Gas Exports Threaten U.S. Jobs

The New York Times: Foreseeable Trouble in Exporting Natural Gas

Sierra Club: Stop LNG Exports

Reuters: The Case Against Natural Gas Exports

Greeley Tribune: Colorado’s Delegation Pushes to Fast-Track LNG Exports to Non Free-Trade Countries

Lexology: Congress Turns Its Attention to LNG Exports

The New York Times: U.S. Hopes Boom in Natural Gas Can Curb Putin

Hill: DOE Approves Natural Gas Export Terminal

Joseph Palmisano

Joseph Palmisano is a graduate of The College of New Jersey with a degree in History and Education. He has a background in historical preservation, public education, freelance writing, and business. While currently employed as an insurance underwriter, he maintains an interest in environmental and educational reform. Contact Joseph at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Politicization of Natural Gas Exports appeared first on Law Street.

My house rumbles and shakes as the cargo trains thunder down the rail that is less that 500 yards away. Although the necessity of turning up the volume on my TV is not much more than a nuisance, the fact that I sleep within the blast zone of a highly combustible material being transported in an inept and accident-prone manner is highly unnerving. Despite the speed of aircraft or the capacity of cargo ships, railroads remain the most efficient medium for transporting goods. That does not mean, though, that they are a flawless medium. In fact, when dealing with the transportation of crude oil, they and the system on which they operate are horrifically flawed.

Fracking in North Dakota yields a crude oil that is shipped in trains across the country and down the Hudson River. In the New York portion, the rail runs literally right along the river’s edge. The particular form of crude coming from these fields can turn into an explosive fire should the trains derail, giving this transportation system the name “bomb trains”. The American Petroleum Institute disputes this claim, though. The issue is compounded by the fact that it is being transported in outdated cars, called DOT-111s, which have thin hulls and are prone to puncture. In the last several years, oil train derailments have spilled millions of gallons and resulted in deaths, notably in Quebec last year.

Apparently the Transportation Department has been looking into the DOT-111 situation for several years now, but a surge in oil production in the North Dakota Bakken shale region has resulted in an immediate demand for large scale transport. There are not enough pipelines to accommodate this volume, so it is being sent along in trains, dubbed a “virtual pipeline.” Furthermore, the existing oil trains were not originally intended to move this type of oil at this level of intensity, thus the dangers. While safer designs are in the proposal stage, many of the existing cars are too old to be retrofitted with the new features and would have to be replaced all together. This is problematic, Jad Mouawad of The New York Times points out, because the transition period would mean that there are fewer cars on the rails and the oil demands would be difficult to meet.

Also sorely lacking is an emergency response plan. Should a disaster occur, sufficient measures are not currently in place either to mitigate the consequences of a spill or to effectively address the human welfare. Not only would lives be endangered, but a spill would gravely threaten the drinkability of the water for both locals and the eight million residents of New York City, as well as the wellbeing of the river’s biodiversity. In a flash, a spill could undo everything that the Hudson conservation organization Riverkeeper has spent the last half century trying to accomplish.

A bird struggles amidst an oil spill near Crimea, courtesy of Marine Photobank/Igor Golubenkov via Flickr

The lack of safety precautions is not the fault of emergency workers, but the Transportation Authority and oil industries themselves. The latter needs to be more open as to when trains are running through what areas, and what is the nature of their cargo. Last month, Orange County, New York joined neighbors Rockland and Ulster in calling for a full environmental review of the potential impacts of the increased oil shipments, a ban on DOT-111s, and an exploration of alternative means of transporting the oil. Embodying the philosophies of Riverkeeper, these actions criticize the secretive nature of the oil industry and demand the release of data to the public. By empowering the people with information, appropriate measures can be taken.

One town in North Jersey took things a step further, staging a protest and calling for a moratorium on the oil trains until safety standards are met. As previously mentioned, the trains run through my own hometown and neighboring ones in Bergen County, New Jersey pass through a very built up and densely populated region; a disaster in this area would be catastrophic and unquestionably deadly.

One must be cautious when performing a review of potential environmental impacts, as the method can be manipulated so as to be favorable to one party over another. The mayor of Albany recently accused the Department of Environmental Conservation of segmentation, an illegal action under the Environmental Quality Review Act. This process enables the review of a project in individual groups, not as an overall whole. In so doing, environmental impacts can be overlooked or miscast. This has allowed oil companies to enlarge or change their transportation permits time and again without raising any red flags. Ecosystems are large and complex; an issue in one arena will affect, often in an unforeseen manner, aspects of another. Further, humans are tightly intertwined with their surrounding environments. The issue must be looked at in its entirety in order to properly assess the dynamics of the dangers and their potential consequences.

The interrelatedness of people, policy, and environment with regard to this issue extends widely. The overemphasis on oil shipments is creating a backlog in other industries. Millions of dollars are lost and countless jobs are endangered as North Dakota farmers, the longtime mainstay of the economy there, are unable to ship their grain products across the country. A cascade effect follows; food companies are pressured to put out their products in light of delayed shipments, occasionally resulting in lower supply and higher prices. Exportation economics suffer as well, as these rails send grains to the Pacific Northwest to be shipped to Asia, and down the very same routes in New York State to be sent to Europe. In the long run, grain will be a more reliable product than oil. Companies are too short sighted and capitalize on the spike, with wide ranging and ever worsening consequences.

While the increased production, transportation, and use of oil is frustrating enough for those who would rather see progress in the field of renewable energy, the fact that it is compounded by a massive threat to local ecosystems and human welfare is outrageous and unacceptable. This issue is more than a concern over energy policy; it is making the use of fossil fuels an environmental and human threat in manners that go beyond emissions and pollution. The dangers must be effectively addressed, and soon.

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 The New Black Death: Oil Trains and Insufficient Safety Regulations appeared first on Law Street.