Misjudging 'Gasland II'
Published: Thursday, July 18, 2013, 8:55 p.m.
I am replying to rebut Maury Fey's letter against “Gasland II” (“Gas needed, not ‘Gasland II,'” July 1 and TribLIVE.com).
First, researchers featured in the film, such as Cornell University and Stanford University professors, know something about research to determine how fracking affects the air we breathe and water we drink. Further, families that have flammable tap water know something about how toxic fracking is.
Second, Mr. Fey claims that we “need” gas. What we need is conservation and long-term sustainability. The gas will run out. Also, just like oil, fracking will leave devastation in its wake.
There are other options to our energy needs, from wind and solar to even our own excrement (no joke, see Kansas State University research). What we need is real energy independence, to put our scientists and engineers to work to incorporate true renewable energy into the grid.
Finally, just like the history of our state shows with coal, toxic fracking will create a boom and bust situation. Once the gas is gone, the damage done to the sustainable industries, from jobs linked to the food supply to jobs linked to Pennsylvania's outdoor heritage, will also be gone as the hunting, farming and tourism industries face irreparable damage.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- ObamaCare Obamination
- Maybe problem is kids
- Menace unaddressed
- Privatization disastrous
- Failing patients & public
- Nukes, not hoops
- Forcing their beliefs
- Leave ‘God’ out
- Fearful homogenization
- Hero at rest
- Choosing judges II