Deer Lakes Park soon will see drilling. Although a “subsurface” lease, the contract allows drilling pads and frack pits right up to the park's border.
Allegheny County Executive Rich Fitzgerald falsely claimed the park's lakes already were polluted. But the state Fish & Boat Commission said the water is fine and continues stocking the lakes. Union fat cats support drilling, but Range Resources said there would be no jobs.
A recent study showed traffic fatalities have skyrocketed in fracking regions. How many collisions will occur on the almost-navigable roads leading to Deer Lakes? I thought our parks were for recreation, not industrial development.
Mr. Fitzgerald boasted of how the park's lease contains “enhanced protections” for the environment. Would “enhanced protections” be necessary if drilling were truly safe? The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has warned of degradation from drilling and how we are charged by our state Constitution to protect the environment for “generations yet to come.”
We are not on the right path for doing so.
Our Judeo-Christian upbringing obligates us to be good stewards of the Earth. The Catholic catechism teaches us “to avoid any disordered use” of our environment that would be “in contempt of the Creator.” And Pope John Paul II warned of how “greed and selfishness” are not only “contrary to the order of creation,” but lead to an ecological and moral crisis as well.
With all the polluting and negative effects occurring — accompanied by greed for the almighty dollar — it would seem this drilling is a disordered use of the environment and most certainly in contempt of the creator.
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.