The Toxic Fight over Fracking: AP Hints MDN an “Extreme Voice”
An AP story in today’s Washington, PA Observer-Reporter takes a look at the natural gas drilling and fracking debate through the lens of those who either support or don’t support the new “voluntary” Center for Sustainable Shale Development (CSSD). The author made a statement that seemed, to us, to perfectly encapsulate the debate: “The fight is so toxic in part because fracking has become a symbol for the even bigger debate over climate change. Both sides see a historic crossroads, like an energy version of D-Day or Waterloo, in which the winner will determine energy and climate policy for decades to come.” We wish we had said it that way!
Two paragraphs later in the same story (and much to our surprise), the AP writer uses a quote from your humble drilling news source, MDN. The quote aptly (and fairly) represents our view of the CSSD…
Like a marriage the in-laws don’t approve of, a new plan to strengthen standards for fracking is creating unusual divisions among environmentalists and supporters of the oil and gas industry.
At first glance, it’s hard to fathom all the angst over the Pittsburgh-based Center for Sustainable Shale Development. Environmental groups, foundations, and major oil and gas companies came together to support stringent measures to protect air and water from pollution in the Appalachian region, and they invited other groups to join in and help limit pollution from fracking.
Not everyone was flattered by the invitation.
“WHOOO-HOOO, Frackers and Environmentalists collaborate!” noted the anti-drilling website No Fracking Way, in a post titled “Fracking Center and Fluffy Kittens.”
The Sierra Club called the new plan “akin to slapping a Band-Aid on a gaping wound,” and a coalition of grass-roots groups called No Frack Ohio claimed that the plan “simply puts green lipstick on a pig.”
The fight is so toxic in part because fracking has become a symbol for the even bigger debate over climate change. Both sides see a historic crossroads, like an energy version of D-Day or Waterloo, in which the winner will determine energy and climate policy for decades to come.
One side envisions an immediate, all-out embrace of renewable energy and a virtual boycott of all fossil fuels. The other says that whether we like it or not, the transition to renewables will take decades, and in the meantime, we need to use technology and new partnerships to make fracking as safe and clean as possible.
The pro-drilling Marcellus Drilling News website wrote that if energy companies such as Shell and Chevron “want to craft an organization that compromises (too far) with eco-nuts, go right ahead and disadvantage yourselves. But don’t require everyone else to follow your lead.”
Some drilling companies politely said they aren’t joining the new coalition, either.
“No,” Range Resources spokesman Matt Pitzarella wrote in an email to the Associated Press, though he added they “commend the groups for coming together.”
In Pennsylvania, which has more new shale gas wells than other states in the region, four of the top ten drillers have signed on with the center – meaning six haven’t.*
So far, so good. The AP writer does an excellent job of framing the issue. But after the good opening, he gets down to the real purpose of the article, which is to “isolate extreme voices” in the debate—i.e., those who express doubts about the CSSD. Like MDN?
One expert suggested that the idea of peace between environmentalists and energy companies threatens extremists on both sides of the fracking debate.
“As moderates in the gas industry and in the environmental community work together more in coming years to improve drilling practices, I think you will see the extremes in both camps become increasingly marginal and isolated, and I think that’s a good thing,” environmentalist Michael Shellenberger wrote in an email. Shellenberger isn’t a part of the shale partnership, but he supports the idea.
Other commentators see promise in opposing sides working together, too.
The Washington Post editorial board called the new plan “a heartening breakthrough in the war over fracking” whose new rules are “a large step toward striking the right balance, and everyone involved deserves credit.”…
The Pittsburgh-based Heinz Endowments is providing some of the funding for the Center for Sustainable Shale Development, and it has also provided significant funding to groups and researchers that are critical of fracking.
Foundation President Robert Vagt wrote in an email that isolating extreme voices may be “a secondary consequence” of the new plan, but that’s not the focus.*
There’s more, click the link below to read the entire article.
MDN’s view: People will make up their own minds about subjective things like whether or not voices like MDN’s are “extreme.” We don’t lose any sleep over it. However, it seems to us that articles like this one from the AP gloss over the key issue—the proposed new “voluntary” standards proposed by the CSSD, standards that will cost millions to comply with and likely put smaller drillers out of business. Where are the journalists who ask the question, Is there a corresponding payback in environmental benefit? Are we buying miles (or even yards or feet) of beneficial environmental impact with these costly new standards? Or are we simply buying inches? Take a close look at the proposed new standards and decide for yourself—MDN has written a handy condensed guide to what they require (see Important: Drillers & Enviros Form New Group, Launch Cert Program).
*AP/Washington (PA) Observer-Reporter (Apr 7, 2013) – Fracking coalition upsets both greens and drillers