(This is my original work published on Art Killing Apathy)
When people say that fracked gas and oil are bridge fuels, I can’t help but think that they’re either joking or making some deep, albeit strained, social commentary. Maybe it’s a dig against this country’s atrocious infrastructure – the fact that more than 50,000 of our bridges are known to be structurally deficient or that 4 in 10 are more than 50 years old. I chuckle to myself at the nerdy joke, assuming for those few seconds that they couldn’t possibly mean that fracked oil and gas are somehow logical transitions towards renewable energy sources. Because that’s just ridiculous! How could fracked oil be considered a bridge fuel? It’s still oil. How could fracked gas be considered a bridge fuel when the extraction and transportation of said gas releases methane, a greenhouse gas that is 34 times more potent than CO2? Not to mention that this would also suggest that you need a bridge – that somehow there’s a gaping chasm between where we are now and the possibility of global renewable energy use. However, a recent Centre for Alternative Technology report points out quite simply that clean energy could already meet all global electricity needs, “using only existing technology, at all times of the day, and all year round.” So really, those who aren’t joking or making stretched social commentary are suggesting that we frack in order to build a toxic bridge over a make-believe gap in our technological abilities.
The ever more absurd and frightening reality is that fracking operations not only represent a toxic and unnecessary bridge, that bridge is actually a backwards, one-way bridge. Because it’s not just about the oil and gas we desperately hack out of the earth like haggard crazed addicts, it’s about the added horrors unique to fracking that further pollute and destroy both people and planet.
A recent Duke University study shows that between 2011 and 2016, the amount of fracking wastewater rose 1,440 percent in the United States. Furthermore, the amount of water used for fracking rose 770 percent in that same time period. Meanwhile, the study found that fracking operations ultimately use more water than they find oil or gas. For instance, in 2013 in California, fracking operations produced more than 3 billion barrels of wastewater for 0.2 billion barrels of oil. That’s a pretty shitty ratio, particularly for a state that’s been on fire the better part of two years. Meanwhile, there’s the question of what to do with all this toxic wastewater – a question even the industry seems at a loss to answer.
In a recent interview with the fossil fuel mag E&P, an industry lawyer admitted that “One of the things I think we can lose sight of is just how much produced water we are creating … which is more on a per day basis than Niagara Falls has going over it in an hour.” To expand further on that comparison, an astonishing 2,727,000,000 gallons (11,376,000 tons) of water fall over the combined three falls that make up Niagara every hour. That means that every day, we produce almost 3 billion gallons of toxic wastewater, or “produced water” as they like to call it. “Produced water” is a typically flaccid and benign term used by the fossil fuel industry to refer to toxic wastewater. It’s just that produced water sounds better. And sure, when you’re talking about 1 trillion gallons of produced water annually, that sounds a lot better than saying, ‘fossil fuel companies dump almost 1 trillion gallons of radioactive wastewater kinda wherever they feel like it every year.’ Unfortunately though, that is the blunt truth.
Fracking operations often use “injection wells” to pump wastewater underground into the rock formations where oil or gas was just pumped out. This practice is not only linked to earthquakes and massive sinkholes but also to groundwater contamination. Because duh. Let’s set the scene here. Fracked wastewater contains radioactive materials as well as corrosive salts. It also includes “chemicals whose identities are considered trade secrets and which even the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency can’t list.” We wouldn’t want y’all stealing the secret to slowly poisoning your own groundwater, now would we?! A small consolation though it may be, companies are supposed to inject wastewater back into geologic formations that don’t contain any usable groundwater. However, there’s a loophole – in the Safe Drinking Water Act of all places. This loophole allows oil and gas companies to apply for an “aquifer exemption.” These exemptions give fracking operations the right to inject toxic wastewater wherever they feel like it – including into aquifers that potentially hold high-quality drinking water. Yes, really. Frack Tracker put together a map (shown below) of all the areas in the country that have these exemptions. Spoiler alert: there are an astonishing number of exemption sites and even entire exemption counties. Now, this would be bad news even if we had enough water to go around. But we really, really don’t.
Already back in 2013, research showed that almost one in ten US watersheds is stressed, meaning that the demand for water exceeds the natural supply available. It just so happens that a lot of fracking operations hunker down in places with stressed watersheds and serious water worries. Take for instance, Texas. Texas has more than 300,000 active oil and gas wells. The state is also getting hit hard by a combination of hotter-than-normal weather and decreased rain fall. The added heat evaporates surface water while of course the decreased rain fall can’t possibly fill depleted water stores. Unfortunately for Texas and its fellow water worried neighbors, the problem will only get worse. Research shows that water usage in fracking operations is rising – up to 50 times more in the next dozen years. Meanwhile back in Texas, as these 300,000+ oil and gas wells keep on trucking, local governments are urging their citizens to water their lawns less and maybe skip a shower or two. Sure, I agree. Fuck lawns. But it’s just too bad that skipping a shower won’t save millions of gallons of water – nor will it save your water from being contaminated – or your house from exploding. Yep, if the lack of potable water or the abundance of poisoned water doesn’t get you, the explosions will.
Earlier this month, a natural gas pipeline rupture caused multiple explosions and injuries in three separate Massachusetts communities. Roughly 70 gas explosions were tallied and at one point, 18 separate blazes were raging in Andover alone. At least one person died (an 18 year old) and more than a dozen were injured according to initial reports. Also in September, an explosion in Beaver County, Pennsylvania destroyed a house, garages and took down six high-tension electric towers. The pipeline responsible went into service on September 3rd, exploded on September 10th and is operated by Energy Transfer Partners – the same company behind the Dakota Access Pipeline, the Bayou Bridge Pipeline and the Mariner East 2 pipeline. It really is a wonder why folks don’t want these pipelines running through their back yards. And these explosive examples are only from one single month!
The concept of a pipeline triggering an explosion and massive fire where people desperately try to find water but only have access to toxic flammable water would be absurdly hilarious if it weren’t a very realistic danger. We need fracking like we need a cup of secret sauce chemical wastewater – or an exploded house. Put simply, there is no reason to ever frack. At all. Ever.
Imagine if instead of staring down the irreversible and mass havoc perpetuated by fracking, we were round tabling how to mitigate a fried bird or two in our solar paneled city. I want those problems. I want to talk wind turbine design because the only negative point that people can think up is that they look kinda ugly. I wanna think of weird and creative ways to harness energy. For instance, why not hook the cardio equipment at gyms up to energy storage that then powers the gym? Or why not turn our food waste into fuel for our cars and our homes? This technology already exists and is used by communities worldwide. Beyond the renewable energy sources and technology we already have to power our world, the potential list of sustainable energy sources is only growing.
Of course, at the core of our twisted choices lies the grave mistake of treating finite resources such as clean water like they’re infinite – and therefore far less important than money, an infinite make-believe resource of mostly digital 1s and 0s we’ve convinced ourselves is so precious and finite. The only gap that requires a bridge is a gap of understanding, a gap filled with the toxic sludge of apathy; a barely moving flood of laissez-faire misconceptions. And we should build a bridge over that troubled water. We should also treat that water, make it a quick moving flood of engagement, education and giving a fuck. We should build bridges that connect our issues and make it easier to act in diverse solidarity, without tripping into chasms of infighting and misunderstandings. We should even build actual bridges – because I’m tired of holding my damn breath every time I drive over a U.S. bridge. Truly, there are so many bridges we should build. Really, the one we can’t afford to build – economically and environmentally – is the fracking bridge.
So, the next time someone says to you, “oh it’s a bridge fuel,” you’ll have a literal and figurative response.
Visit https://www.fractracker.org/ for more stats & info on fracking.
As the capitalistic machine arrives at full speed at the edge of the cliff, it can neither steer away nor slow down, it builds instead a makeshift bridge to fall into the ocean 30 years later.
Switching all energy sources to "renewable" today without changing our production, consumption and lifestyle would only build a longer bridge without altering the catastrophic outcome. Only by questioning unregulated capitalism and globalized consumerism can we slow down the engine and steer away from the cliff.
Not sure where the bridge metaphor brought me, but thanks for the good article : )
I'm not quite sure what you are suggesting by "whithout changing our production, consumption and lifestyle would only build a longer bridge without altering the catastrophic outcome."
Does this mean even though we've gone 100% renewable we still need to live on less and expect that we should use less electricity and why would you suggest that? Humankind has always found ways, perhaps environmentally challenging, to better our lives and become more productive. If all sources of energy are now "renewable" what does the 2nd part of the above quoted statement mean and why?
Exponential growth of resource usage in a finite world leads to civilizational collapse. The idea was already presented in the 1972 Meadows report Limits to growth, which seems to be accurate in its predictions unfortunately
Limits to Growth with Historical Data, University of Melbourne 2014
None of these studies seem to take into account "renewables." The one from the Guardian only mentions "Peak oil could be the catalyst for global collapse. Some see new fossil fuel sources like shale oil, tar sands and coal seam gas as saviours..." So we still seem to be talking about different things. The 3rd one is an economic argument, which is true I might add, but irrelevant to your overall argument in regards to renewable's.
There are such things as vertical farms, bio-fuels, solar panels etc....that none of these studies touch on. These are renewable's, no? The father of invention is necessity. Agreed it's pulling teeth w/all the military/industrial/medical complexes' out there but espousing collectivism (which I assume is your point somehow) has continually failed, and is currently failing everywhere it's tried.
I don't expect any up-votes here lol, but I feels compelled to challenge collectivist ideals where ever they may spring up. Communism (collectivism at it's worst) is the deadliest ideology in human history. This is future that needs avoided as well. If I am wrong about your feelings in this regard I apologize, but I watch @eleanorgoldfield's posts for being, how should we say....RED.
Thx for the posts' btw. I didn't watch the YT video tbh. I hate subtitles....;)
Thanks for challenging : ) One message of Limits to Growth is that all Earth's resources need to be considered, fossil fuels and greenhouse gas emissions are one crucial aspect but not the only one. You may have heard of Earth overshoot day. My point is simply that even if energy is produced using clean sources, humanity still can create massive environmental disasters through deforestation, overfishing, intensive agriculture, water contamination, other forms of pollution, especially if population keeps growing at current rate (could be 10 billion by 2050) and adopts Western lifestyle. Climate change is already on the way and would still have catastrophic impact even if Paris agreement emission reduction targets are met.
By the way I am not advocating for collectivism/communism (at least not here : )) but against status quo. The drastic changes needed for our environment might also be accomplished within a strongly regulated capitalist society with eco-tariffs.
It's my pleasure! ;) Most western govt's, by now, have already adopted renewable forests, energy, endangered species conservation etc etc...I don't understand why a "western Lifestyle" threatens you so much! Places that have populations that are out of control (Asia, South Africa, India) are places that do not adopt western ideals and their environments are suffering at a much faster rate than ours. It would make more sense to condemn "Eastern Lifestyles." Capitalism and a western lifestyle isn't the problem.
China, India & the middle east, have some of the worst track records as far as their environment. Why do you think there is such a push for immigration to places like the US & Europe out of these places? It isn't because their destinations are fetid and putrid.
I spent many years studying global warming & have watched all predictions and estimates shattered. There simply isn't anything there, this is why it's been twisted to include any weather anomaly and called "climate change." This is my educated opinion, and all the groups that claim environmentalism are also complexes in themselves. Funded by central banks and collectivist group think-tanks that want nothing more than people to submit to an overall authority and all matters of their lives. Collectivist societies are a governments (and those that actually control government i.e. central banks) wet dream! Be careful what you wish for ;).
Eco-tariffs don't sound like such a bad thing, oh and I especially enjoy this bullet-line from your link of Earth overshoot day.
"In the 10 U.S. cities with the largest carbon footprints, more than 10,000 free Endangered Species Condoms will be given away by the Center for Biological Diversity."
What a better way to spread biological diversity than to promote contraceptives in societies that actually have a grasp on the necessity for preserving their environments LOL!! You just can't make this stuff up!
I am not sure if you are trolling however this will be my last post in this @eleanorgoldfield thread since Steemit user interface on my phone is unable to render properly deeply nested replies.
It does not threaten me personally but the finite resources of our planet. Would need five Earths to satisfy the appetite of humanity if all would consume like an average American.
Globalization and free trade led to the outsourcing of polluting activities to countries with lower regulations and standards. Capitalism is dominating.
You are mixing preservation of the local environment with ecological footprint. You can live within a nice and clean walled community with natural parks, while consuming many products which require high amount of resources and generate pollution in different parts of the world. Out of sight, out of mind. That is the idea behind Earth overshoot day, measuring the ecological footprint. You should try to read it without focusing only on condoms.
Did you ? Would be nice to share your findings with the world community so that we stop worrying about this non-issue. See link in previous comment about feedback mechanisms.
Again I don't understand why you talk about collectivist conspiracy theories here.
I agree this is stupid but it does not mean that the whole concept of measuring our ecological footprint in the context of limited resources should be discarded...
Agreed! And thanks for the comment - have been trying to reply for the past few days but finally got a chance!
Thanks, yes I cannot post any long article either since the draconian HF20 update. Most of the users will have to pick very carefully their few daily interactions. It's still relevant to the thread though, experiencing a brutal transition from resource opulence to scarcity, as our generation will likely face on a global scale after destroying the environment.
Important article. Linguistic twisting by the fossil industry is skilled and deceptive. Thanks for posting. Resteemed.
Upvoted.
DISCLAIMER: Your post is upvoted based on curation algorithm configured to find good articles e.g. stories, arts, photography, health, community, etc. This is to reward you (authors) for sharing good content using the Steem platform especially newbies.
If you're a dolphin or whales, and wish not to be included in future selection, please let me know so I can exclude your account. And if you find the upvoted post is inappropriate, FLAG if you must. This will help a better selection of post.
Keep steeming good content.
@Shares - Curation Service
Posted using https://Steeming.com condenser site.
Killer article. Resteemed