Since the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990 acid rain in the Adirondacks has made a significant difference to lakes there. Some were completely dead…but are now coming back to like. Doesn’t mean there’s still not a problem. More can still be done.
1 Like
And because it’s not effective and they know it. If Minnesota decides to relax waterway dumping laws and everyone starts dumping sewage and toxic waste into the Mississippi, then it doesn’t matter how strict Louisiana’s environmental laws become - their river is still going to be a cesspool.
The entity actually producing the pollution is the entity that will rightfully catch most of the blame. The regulation discussion then turns to which plan will achieve the desired result, and a state-by-state basis isn’t it even assuming an individual state government does not worry about companies moving out.
The difference is that we can elect our government officials but not executives at corporations. Therefore corporations have no accountability except to ownership and shareholders while government is accountable to the electorate, that’s you and me. Conflating the goals of business and government is an example of why people believe fakers like our new President Elect.
1 Like
Boy are we going to get in trouble for going off topic when Carolyn comes in to work Tuesday morning. We can’t be left alone for a long weekend without a babysitter. 
4 Likes
Here’s what the EPA actually had to say about fracking:
“We did not find evidence that these mechanisms [of possible contamination] have led to widespread, systemic impacts on drinking water resources in the United States,”
So crazy exaggerations aside, the pollution needs to be dealt with, and there are plenty of regs in place to do just that.
And the pollution levels in rivers are the perfect measure of the regulations’ effectiveness.
Don’t forget that a few years ago, it wasn’t fracking that poisoned the water in West Virginia, it was chemicals that leeched from tanks owned by the fracking industry that poisoned the water. That’s an important distinction.
1 Like
A[quote=“texases, post:46, topic:98456”]
“We did not find evidence that these mechanisms [of possible contamination] have led to widespread, systemic impacts on drinking water resources in the United States,”
[/quote]
Keep up with the latest news EPA Reversed that last year. Nice try though
1 Like
That was from your link.
Here’s what the latest summary says:
"Data gaps and uncertainties limited EPA’s ability to fully assess the potential impacts on drinking water resources locally and nationally. Because of these data gaps and uncertainties, it was not possible to fully characterize the severity of impacts, nor was it possible to calculate or estimate the national frequency of impacts on drinking water resources from activities in the hydraulic fracturing water cycle. "
So they changed their original report, which found no evidence of widespread problems, to this version, which says there’s not enough data to estimate the frequency. Read the rest, and it’s a laundry list of what MIGHT happen. Anyone could have written it with no effort.
Here’s all they could say about how often it happens:
"Q: How many documented impacts have you found and where are they?
A: EPA’s study was not designed to identify or quantify all impacts. EPA used cases of impacts (and other data, information, and analyses) to identify combinations of hydraulic fracturing water cycle activities and local- or regional-scale factors that are more likely than others to result in more frequent or more severe impacts on drinking water resources. Data gaps and uncertainties prevented EPA from calculating or estimating the national frequency of impacts on drinking water resources from activities in the hydraulic fracturing water cycle. "
No mention of “countless wells”…
I’m only continuing this because there are huge stakes with our oil and gas production. Oil prices today are half or less what they would be without the huge increase in production from US fracked wells. Everyone in the US is paying less every day for gasoline - a LOT less. $50/bbl saved X 7 billion barrels of oil a year = $350 Billion saved in 2016. Should fracking be regulated? Yes, and it is. Should it be banned out of fear, as some want? Absolutely not.
And we need to remember how much fracking has saved with natural gas, which is at 1/3 the cost it would have been. $6/MCF saved X 27 TCF/year = $164 Billion saved in 2016.
It’s also making a HUGE impact in reducing CO2 emissions, more natural gas = less coal burned. So decisions on fracking need to be made based on careful analysis of the facts.
1 Like
Justify the pollution because it lowers gas prices. Typical.
That’s like saying “Justify 35,000 deaths a year because people drive cars, typical.” Should we ban cars?
Saving half a trillion dollars a year, into your and my and everybody’s pockets, isn’t important?
Any human activity has costs and benefits. Our job is to manage them effectively.
Mike:
AGAIN with the unsubstantiated claims…you said that water quality, as a whole, is on the decrease in the USA. Which is false.
Consider: Cuyahoga no longer catches fire. Lake Erie is no longer a “dead lake”; it’s got problems still, sure, but places like Presque Isle have swimmable beaches, and fishing. Pittsburgh’s rivers have improved to the point that we hold a huge annual bass fishing tournament. There are no more PCBs being discharged into the Hudson. That is progress. There’s still work to be done, no doubt, but things are getting better, not worse.
And what you don’t “get” about fracking risks is that it’s harm reduction. Generally, we’re using natural gas as a REPLACEMENT for coal, and fracking means less coal gets mined as a consequence. And while fracking might dirty up the occasional well…mining makes rivers turn orange! On net, fracking is better that the alternative,
Again. Read my post. I said there are areas where water quality has often better. But many areas where it’s gotten worse - much worse. We’re finding new areas all the tome from fracking to industrial waste to coal and even pig waste. We have to keep adding laws to keep up.
1 Like
She’s probably expecting it.
I’ll say I like the fact that our version of cutting up is having a respectful discussion about politics. You should see what other forums get up to when the moderators are away. 
Again. Mike, you said that US water quality, AS A WHOLE, is getting worse, (with a few minor areas of improvement). Which begs the question: WHAT major watersheds are declining? I’m not talking about “Farmer Bob’s well has run dry”: to minimize “background noise,” let’s look at water quality at the “watershed” level.
AFAIK, the major trouble spots are:
-
The Chesapeake is a nasty mess of sewage and farming run-off (but it’s been that way for a while…it isn’t “getting worse,” as claimed, but just continuing to be bad)
-
There is problem with lake Okeechobee in Fla, and (again) sugar-farm runoff that is, essentially just about as bad as it’s ever been, but not getting worse.
-
There’s the “dead zone” in the Gulf…but technically in international waters. Besides that’s, again, agricultural. (Ironically enough, the EPA is largely responsible FOR the severity of this problem, what with their “ethanol fuel mandate” artificially amping up the corn production of this country substantially beyond what it would otherwise be.)
-
And, as said, there’s the (minor) issue of some fracking pollution…but it is overstated in its severity, certainly W/R/T the clearly more destructive effects of acid-mine drainage on watersheds. When fracking displaces coal mining, it’s a ecological win (on net), replacing a lousy practice with a somewhat less-lousy one…
Again, how, exactly, are our MAJORITY of waterways getting worse? Seems like the big problem is agribusiness, not fracking. While feeding a nation is no doubt worth the ecological burden…accepting the same eco burden in order to put some moonshine in the gas tank seems decidedly less so! (And which ALSO makes this post “automotive-related.”)
Words of wisdom, texases. As my ECON teacher said, “Clean air an water is simply a good; one that is subject to phenomena such as the Law of Diminishing Returns. The question is: how much clean air and water do we want to purchase, and what is an acceptable price to pay for it?”
TANSTAAFL, folks!
The largest source of Chesapeake Bay pollution is agricultural (manure and fertilizer), but it is getting better. Delmarva has an immense chicken industry, and a lot of the pollution abatement money from MD and DE goes into transporting chicken droppings to processing facilities that convert it to pelletized fertilizer that is more easily transported. There is an article in the Baltimore Sun this morning that discusses how approximately $1 million will be spent this year to transport chicken droppings to two or three processors.
Many watersheds are staying the same - although the quality is considered good…it’s not getting better. No where near what pristine water was some 300 years ago.
But what areas are getting worse…
From the article below -
In a 2009 report , the EPA warned that “threats to drinking water are increasing,” adding that “we can no longer take our drinking water for granted.” And in 2010, the Environmental Working Group proved the EPA right, issuing a landmark report that chromium-6 is prevalent in at least 35 U.S. cities’ water supplies.
And let’s not forget LEAD. Take from the article below.
In fact, data CNBC obtained from the Environmental Protection Agency reveals that only nine U.S. states are reporting safe levels of lead in their water supply. These include Alabama, Arkansas, Hawaii, Kentucky, Mississippi, Nevada, North Dakota, South Dakota and Tennessee.
As a whole we dump millions of gallons of chemicals from all types of different things (cleaning materials, paint, oil…) that end up in our water supply. One recent discovery is those small scrubbing beads found in many shampoos that’s getting by waste treatments. And since they’re plastic, they don’t biodegrade over time.
Here are some large populations who’s water quality is very questionable.
http://www.aol.com/article/2011/01/31/ten-american-cities-with-worst-drinking-water/19816730/
I stand by my statement that the watershed as a whole is NOT getting better. It peaked about 10 years ago…and seems to be getting worse, with the potential to get much worse.
-
Okay, I notice that you failed to give specific examples of which watersheds are devolving, just a general, chicken-littleish “things are getting worse.”
-
Most of what you cited is NOT related to watersheds, and IS related to “water purification infrastructure.” Two different things.
-
Most of the current “heavy metals crisis” with our water supply focuses NOT on concentrations going UP, but in “acceptable limits” being ratcheted DOWN. If you’re gonna halve the allowable lead…and then claim a “crisis” because more places fail the “new and improved” standards…that’s a bit disingenuous, doncha think?
-
Again…whatever [IMO, overblown] risks there are from facing, it pales in the face of the watershed risks of longwall coal mining, for instance. As long as fracking is used to replace coal, I’m all for it, from an environmental perspective.
Also…some of this stuff, like “hexavalent chromium,” isn’t currently regulated…or isn’t regulated as much as the EPA would like. Thus, all this “doom and gloom” in wholly unbiased sources like the [LOL] “Mother Earth News Network” needs to be understood in the context of it being the EPA’s “spiel” about “why you ought to let us regulate it.” Of necessity, they’re gonna pimp the heck out of the “scary” side…and a person who digests news critically is capable of appreciating that, and discounting the impact accordingly.