This was not an easy decision, and will be extremely difficult to implement, but needed ASAP.

Letter Update from the Climate Reality Project, December 19, 2023

Despite its many flaws and contradictions, COP 28 marks a major step forward for our movement. For the first time ever, a COP agreement explicitly acknowledges the main culprit responsible for the climate crisis: fossil fuels. While the agreement falls short of a complete phase out of fossil fuels, it urges countries to transition away from them, calling for a tripling of renewables and doubling of energy efficiency this decade.

Yes, there are caveats. The agreement lacks binding commitments, leaving countries to decide on their own pace of transition. It’s riddled with loopholes to benefit petrostates and fossil fuel lobbyists – who had more representation at the UN climate summit than every country except Brazil and the UAE – through “transitional fuels” like natural gas and unproven and expensive technologies like carbon capture and storage.

Plus, for the many island nations and climate-vulnerable countries whose very survival depends on the world holding rising temperatures to 1.5 degrees Celsius, the agreement doesn’t go nearly far enough. But our fight is far from over. If there’s anything to take away from COP 28, it’s the fact that the world is ready to leave fossil fuels behind.

The almost 130 countries supporting a phase out, the near open revolt by island nations, and the public outcry from thousands of climate advocates from around the world all point towards a future where fossil fuels are no longer king. For a recap of COP 28 and what comes next, check out our wrap-up videos at 24hoursofreality.org.

WATCH THE RECAP WITH AL GORE

The road ahead will be challenging, but we are not giving up yet. The science is clear: We need to phase out all fossil fuels to keep our goal of holding warming to 1.5 degrees within reach. Not just unabated fuels. Not just emissions. All fossil fuels.

Critically, we also have to do it fairly. The wealthy nations that got us here need to lead the transition away from coal, oil, and gas and provide the long-promised financing for developing countries to build clean energy economies of their own.

But the biggest takeaway is that now the world is talking about a future without fossil fuels. And that’s worth fighting for.

>>>Your friends at Climate Reality Project

#######+++++++#######+++++++########

PS. Take action today by calling on leaders of the G20 group of major economies to end all subsidies for fossil fuel companies making billions driving climate devastation.

#######+++++++#######+++++++########

PS. For the United States, it is now crystal clear that our country can no longer justify the Halliburton Loops, that is preferential environmental regulations for the fossil fuel industries. DGN

FactCheck.org and FracFocus.org provide some answers

The Facts on Fracking Chemical Disclosure – FactCheck.org, April 7, 2017

Q: Are the chemicals in fracking solution protected from being made public by a law passed while Dick Cheney was vice president?

A: Yes. A 2005 law bans the federal government from requiring companies to disclose fracking chemicals. But 28 states do require disclosure of some fracking fluids.

FULL QUESTION

Is it true that the chemicals in fracking solution are protected from being made public by a law or bill passed by Congress while Dick Cheney was in President Bush’s cabinet? Is it true that Cheney strong-armed members in Congress to pass the bill? Is it true that the fracking companies don’t have to reveal the chemicals in fracking solution?

FULL ANSWER – Part II

Regulating Fracking Under State Law

Even though fracking can’t be regulated by the federal government, it can under state law.

Along with other regulations related to the practice, as of January 2016, 28 states require the disclosure of some, but not all, chemicals used during fracking. Twenty-three states use a registry called FracFocus, which is the most comprehensive database on fracking chemicals.

But fracking operators don’t have to report all the chemicals they use in part because of trade secrets laws, which also protect Coca-Cola’s recipe, for example. So what proportion of fracking chemicals do companies reveal in states with disclosure laws?

According to the EPA, fracking operators withheld 11 percent of the chemicals they reported to FracFocus between January 2011 and February 2013. As a reason for not disclosing information, companies said the information was “confidential,” a “trade secret” or “proprietary.” The EPA also found that 70 percent of disclosures withheld one chemical or more.

But the rate of withheld chemicals may have increased since then, according to researchers at Harvard University.

Kate Konschnik, the policy director at Harvard’s Environment Law Program, and a colleague found that 18.9 percent of fracking chemicals reported on over 53,000 forms filed to FracFocus between November 2012 and April 2015 “were intentionally withheld from public disclosure.” And 92.3 percent of these forms included “at least one withheld ingredient,” the researchers reported in their paper published in the journal Energy Policy in January 2016.

Like the EPA, the researchers found that companies didn’t always specifically cite “trade secret” as the reason for withholding chemical information: Companies also cited “proprietary,” “confidential” and “n/a” as reasons.

Trade secrets have the “clearest and most rigorous legal standards,” as they’re “limited to information about a production method, process or formula … which the owner has taken steps to protect,” the researchers pointed out.

The term “confidential,” on the other hand, is mentioned in some state disclosure requirements, but it’s often not defined. And there are “virtually no definitions or standards” for citing “proprietary” or “n/a” as reasons for withholding information, the researchers said.

The study found that fracking companies withheld chemicals citing “confidential” or “proprietary” grounds in states that only accept “trade secret” as an acceptable justification. For this reason, the researchers reasoned that “some companies are unaware of state-specific rules or do not expect enforcement.”

Overall, “the less rigorous the standard” for justification (i.e., proprietary instead of trade secret), “the more likely it has been used to justify withholding information in FracFocus,” the researchers concluded.

Fracking Chemicals and the Environment

But are the chemicals associated with fracking hazardous to human health and the environment in the first place? And are they reaching sources of drinking water?

The EPA attempted to answer these questions in its final report on the relationship between fracking and drinking water resources that was released in December 2016.

Here’s what the agency found: There are select cases where evidence suggests that fracking chemicals have reached drinking water resources and impacted human health and the environment. But limited data prevents the agency from making general conclusions.

For example, the EPA report cites studies that have linked fracking and the contamination of drinking water resources in instances where companies spilled fracking fluids, experienced equipment failure or fracked wells too close in depth to drinking water resources (i.e., shallow fracking), for example.

The report also notes studies that found associations between the proximity of pregnant mothers living next to natural gas wells and increased cases of congenital heart defects and lower birth weights. Other studies cited in the report found an association between living closer to natural gas wells and an increase in the number of reported respiratory and skin issues. And another study found evidence to support a link between the contamination of streams by fracking fluids and the death of fish and other aquatic animals.

Overall, “while combined evidence suggests hydraulic fracturing has the potential to impact human health via contamination of drinking water resources, the actual public health impacts are not well understood and not well documented,” the EPA concluded.

At least three factors prevented the agency from making definitive conclusions.

First, scientists haven’t evaluated the potential human health and environmental toxicity of the majority of chemicals known to be used in fracking. But this dearth of data isn’t specific to fracking – researchers have estimated that “tens of thousands of chemicals in commercial use” have “not undergone significant toxicological evaluation,” the EPA report notes.

The “potential hazards” associated with chronic ingestion of the chemicals with toxicological profiles include cancer, immune system effects, changes in body weight and changes in blood chemistry. Other fracking chemicals also are known to be specifically toxic to the heart, nervous system, liver, kidneys, reproduction and development.

Second, scientists don’t have comprehensive, national data on when, where and how much of these chemicals are reaching drinking water resources and being ingested by people.

In select cases, fracking fluids have reached drinking water resources through spills, leaks and inadequate disposal, as mentioned previously. Fracking chemicals have also been detected in drinking water resources at levels that could impact human health. Still, “there is a lack of systematic studies examining actual human exposures to these chemicals in drinking water as a result of hydraulic fracturing activity,” the report said.

Third, companies don’t reveal all the chemicals they use, for the reasons described above. “Having a better understanding of the chemicals and formulations, including those that are [deemed confidential business information], along with their frequency of use and volumes, would greatly benefit risk assessment and risk management decisions,” the EPA report concluded.

To sum up, the federal government can’t regulate fracking, including chemical disclosure, because of a provision in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. This act was preceded by a 2001 energy policy report that advocated for the expanded use of fracking and was released by a group chaired by Cheney. While 28 states do have chemical disclosure laws on the books, companies do not disclose all the chemicals they use and sometimes do not fully comply with the laws. In order to make a definitive conclusion about the impact of these chemicals on human health and the environment nationally, scientists need to conduct more research. However, there is evidence to support their impact in select cases.

Note: SciCheck is made possible by a grant from the Stanton Foundation, funded from estate of Frank Stanton, PhD, former President of the CBS Broadcasting System.  His PhD was in psychology from the Ohio State University.

Open Letter to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)

TO: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC, 20426

RE:  Limit Interstate Pipelines for Natural Gas & NGL from Fracked Horizontal Gas Wells

We assert to you a responsibility to apply the following principles to your consideration of the PIPELINES and COMPRESSOR STATIONS now being planned in the United States:

>> Natural gas and natural gas liquids (NGL) are hydrocarbons and fossil fuels, as such they are greenhouse gases in the atmosphere of the EARTH; and, when they are consumed will ultimately become carbon dioxide which is a greenhouse gas already above 400 ppm in the atmosphere, an unsafe level which promotes Global Warming and other problems.

>> The President of the US has mandated that greenhouse gases are to be controlled and limited to reduce Global Warming and Climate Change, which has already reached extremes as demonstrated by global temperature measures and weather conditions.

>> The US EPA seeks to control and limit greenhouse gases from all sources, particularly the fossil fuels that are the major contributors of methane and carbon dioxide.

>> The US Department of the Interior seeks to limit damages to our public lands, and this example should carryover to State properties of Schools, Parks, Forests, and others.

>> The US Forest Service has expressed substantial concerns for certain damages to our National Parks, National Forests, and other forested lands due to pipeline construction, compressor stations, and extensive land and forest damages including fires and explosions that are not uncommon.

>> The right of “eminent domain” which grants permission to private companies for the taking of personal property has been grossly abused by FERC; therefore, only in the most urgent and essential cases should such authority be granted, the instances should be very few and the land taken should be a very small amount and of marginal value.

>> The “Halliburton loopholes” should be set aside as not appropriate in the regulation of the environmental damages of fracking and pipelines to water supplies, air quality and other protections where the public health is at risk.

These considerations should apply to the Atlantic Coast Pipeline across WV, VA, and NC; to the Mountain Valley Pipeline across WV and VA, to the Nexus Pipeline across Ohio, Michigan and Canada; to the ET Rover Pipeline across WV, OH, Michigan and Canada; to the Sunoco Mariner East 2 Pipeline across Ohio, WV and PA, and to the many other large diameter and long distance pipelines that are being developed.

This should also apply to the thousands of miles of smaller and shorter pipelines within the individual States, as we are particularly concerned about Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, and Virginia where extensive pipeline develop is underway.  Access road construction and pipeline/compressor station installation and operation are destructive of the land, result in subsidence, sedimentation, fragmentation and other damages.

Air pollution results from gas well development and from vents, leaks, flares, fires and explosions.  The fracking silica sand and diesel trucks and other equipment have been shown to create dangerous health conditions due to ultra-fine particulates and other pollutants.

Duane G. Nichols, Board Member, Mon Valley Clean Air Coalition

cc: President Obama, Governors of PA, OH, VA and WV

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

See also the regional protest activities:  ”Hands Across Our Land“

Fracked wells operate at very high pressure

New concerns arise over fracking’s safety for society

From an Article by Bruce Kennedy, CBS / Moneywatch, July 2, 2014

The ongoing controversy over the method for removing oil and gas from unconventional, hard-to-reach underground deposits that’s known as hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” has some new data to chew on.

It seems a large percentage of oil and gas wells tapping the Marcellus Shale region of Pennsylvania are leaking methane gas, either into the air or into underground sources of drinking water. That’s the finding of an analysis conducted by a Cornell University-led research team and published this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The team looked at compliance reports for more than 41,000 conventional and unconventional oil and gas wells in Pennsylvania. It determined that unconventional gas wells in northeastern Pennsylvania had a nearly three-fold higher risk of leaking, compared to conventional wells in the same region. One possible factor for this so-called “methane migration,” according to the study, could be “compromised structural integrity” in the casings and cement used in the unconventional oil and gas wells.

“These results, particularly in light of numerous contamination complaints and explosions nationally in areas with high concentrations of unconventional oil and gas development and the increased awareness of the role of methane in anthropogenic [man-made] climate change, should be cause for concern,” it concluded. “In a typical well, hundreds of bags of cement are mixed and injected,” Anthony Ingraffea, one of the study’s lead authors and a Cornell professor of civil and environmental engineering, told the University’s Cornell Chronicle news site. ”If the water-to-cement mixture ratio isn’t right, you have problems,” he said. “With too much water, the cement shrinks. With too little water, the mixture dries too fast.”

The energy industry has fired back against the new report. ”This paper is a work of deception that massively exaggerates the risks of domestic oil and natural gas production,” Katie Brown, spokesperson for Energy in Depth — a program of the Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA) — said in a statement. “The lead author claims to be an objective researcher,” she continued, “but he’s really an outspoken opponent of drilling who works with fringe environmental groups and celebrity anti-energy activists like performance artist Yoko Ono and Hollywood actor Mark Ruffalo.”

Fracking has helped bring about an historic oil and gas production boom in the U.S., creating energy supplies that are moving the U.S. closer to energy independence. On Tuesday, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) reported that American crude oil production for April was 8.4 million barrels per day. Texas and North Dakota, two states where fracking is in wide use, accounted for nearly half the total.

However, opponents have been pointing to fracking’s potential health dangers, such as possible wide-scale pollution of essential drinking water supplies, as reasons to limit or even completely ban the process.

But Mark Zoback, a Stanford University geophysicist, member of the National Academy of Engineering’s Deepwater Horizon investigation committee and a fracking expert, says this technology has a place, as long as the states and federal government set up rigorous standards to oversee its use and protect both the public and the environment. “The oil and gas industry is a large-scale industrial process, [like] food preparation, aviation, transportation, chemical plants,” Zoback recently told the Los Angeles Times. “We live in a highly technological and complex society,” he said, “and the only way we can survive is through the marriage between technology and regulation.

Also: “Scientists in Ohio link fracking to earthquakes”

Also: “Wisconsin debates fracking as sand mining for drilling booms”