Readers of this blog know my stance on the hydraulic fracturing(fracking) shale in order to release natural gas deposits that were unattainable before the process was developed, I have posted about its potential harm to our enviroment and drinking water supplies numerous times in the past which you can read Here… Here and Here .
Until it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the process is not harmful to the environment or to our drinking water supplies the practice of fracking should be haulted. Fresh clean, drinkable water is becoming scarce and harder to find, thus it is becoming a precious commodity that shouldn’t be messed with.
So the vote yesterday morning to postponing the upcoming Monday mornings vote to approve the process in and along the Delaware River Basin (a key fresh water source for residents of New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New York and Delaware) is welcomed news.
Accoding to the Star-Ledger environmental groups are pleased with this postponment:
Environmentalists greeted the vote postponement as a major victory, and for grassroots activism. Maya van Rossum, the Delaware Riverkeeper, said the anti-fracking contingent would still be demonstrating in Trenton on Monday morning as previously planned, despite the cancellation.
“There’s still going to be a showing — to send a message, largely,” she said.
“As long as there is a delay, we can continue working toward getting a permanent ban on fracking in the Delaware basin,” added Jeff Tittel, executive director of the Sierra Club’s New Jersey chapter. “We need to keep the pressure up on Governor Christie and the Obama administration to stop these weak rules from moving forward.”
You can read the more about the postponement …. Here
The following commentary from Dennis Anderson, Chair of the Jersey Shore (Monmouth) Group of the Sierra Club and Joellen Lundy, President of N.J. Friends of Clearwater appears on the website Newjerseynewsroom.com as well as a few other sites.
I post it here because the subject of hydraulic fracturing(fracking) shale in order to release natural gas deposits that were unattainable before the process was developed, has become a very big issue. The chemicals that are used in the process have polluted ground water and surrounding lands with hazardous and carcinogenic residues, guest blogger Linda Baum posted a column about fracking and it’s dangers here back in April.
Since then a number of articles on the subject, both Pro
, have been making there way into the media.
Legislation banning Fracking
in NJ, is sitting on Governor Christie’s desk waiting for his signature. Why he hasn’t signed it yet is anyone’s guess.
NJ is the most densely populated state in the nation and our natural resources will be placed at risk if franking is allowed to continue without the proper safety constraints in place to ensure that drinking water, wildlife and the general population are not placed risk:
Opponents of the environmentally damaging practice now sweeping the country of hydrofracking shale deposits for natural gas were delighted last week when the N.J. Legislature voted to ban the practice. The vote, 33 to 1 in the Senate and 51 to 11 in the Assembly, showed such a rare bi-partisan agreement so absent in today’s political discourse that many environmentalists hoped New Jersey’s politicians finally recognized that solving the state’s pollution problems transcends partisan bickering.
We hope this is the case, but we’re not sure. Gov. Christie, who has become increasingly hostile to the state’s environmental problems, has yet to sign the bill. If he does, it will be a watershed event. But will he? Sen. Joseph M. Kyrollis Jr. did not vote on the bill but offered an amendment — rejected by the Senate — to ban hydrofracking for five years. But why would Kyrollis delay hydrofracking?
There is growing public anger over hydrofracking, which requires enormous amounts of water and a number of toxic chemicals that the frackers are not required by law to report. Vice President Dick Cheney accomplished this dodge while in office. These undisclosed chemicals pollute both underground and surface water supplies. This debacle is very hard for politicians to support, so we may be seeing a “pretend” vote where pro-development politicians duck citizens’ ire by voting against hydrofracking, knowing that the governor will use his veto power to avoid an out-right ban and force environmentally responsible politicians to accept Kyrollis’ “compromise” that opens the door in five years.
The state of New Jersey deserves better. Until hydrofracking is absolutely safe, it must be banned. The first step would be to require complete disclosure of the chemicals they plan on indirectly pumping into our water supply.