Posted on 06/07/2015 1:58:16 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
Fracking is creating a new dividing line between the nation’s red and blue states.
While liberal-leaning states such as New York and Maryland have opted to ban hydraulic fracturing, despite the potential revenue from natural gas, conservative strongholds such as Texas and Oklahoma have gone the opposite route, moving to ensure that local towns and cities cannot outlaw the practice in their communities.
Observers say a state’s approach to fracking is increasingly falling along partisan lines, with the affiliation of a state’s legislature and governor often reflected in whether the practice is welcome or shunned.
“Where we have legislative or executive preemption efforts, we have tended to see would be expected, which is that the more liberal states tend to be more concerned about the environmental and social effects of fracking, whereas the more conservative states tend to welcome the money,” said Hannah Wiseman, a Florida State University Professor who researches environmental regulation,
The Democratic leaders of New York and Maryland have banned fracking, responding to the concerns of environmentalists, who say fracking can pollute groundwater and the air.
Kate DeAngelis, the head climate and energy campaigner at Friends of the Earth, said the increasing evidence of environmental harm from fracking is spurring residents and local political leaders to rise up against the practice.
“There’s just more and more evidence, you see so many new studies coming out even in the last year about the impacts of fracking,” said DeAngelis, whose group pushes for more restrictions and bans on fracking and cheered the decisions.
Supporters of fracking dispute that the practice — which involves high-pressured injections of water and chemicals into rock — is environmentally harmful. They got a boost this week when the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a long-awaited review of the scientific research on the topic.
The main conclusion of the nearly 1,000-page EPA report was that fracking has not “led to widespread, systemic impacts on drinking water resources in the United States.”
That was welcome news to Texas and Oklahoma, which are promoting fracking as critical for their local economies.
The debate over fracking is raging at the local level, where states and localities are locked in emotional debates over what restrictions, if any, to place on the practices.
In the states that don’t allow local bans, DeAngelis argued that environmental concerns are being drowned out by the power and influence of oil and gas companies.
“They’re having their interests put above the public interest,” she said.
New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) decided last year to indefinitely ban fracking, disappointing the rural upstate communities that sit atop the gas-rich Marcellus shale formation.
State officials finalized the move last month, shortly before Maryland imposed a 2.5-year moratorium on fracking over the objections of Republican Gov. Larry Hogan.
The EPA’s report this week finding little evidence of water contamination form fracking has spurred calls for Cuomo to reverse his decision.
Activists in California have put Gov. Jerry Brown (D) under strong pressure to ban fracking there, but have thus far been unsuccessful.
Industry groups fear a patchwork of rules for fracking across municipal lines and want the regulatory questions to be settled on a state-by-state basis.
“We think that the appropriate place to regulate oil and gas activities is at the state level. States have the expertise and the experience within the agencies that regulate oil and gas,” said Frank Macchiarola, head of government affairs for America’s Natural Gas Alliance.
“While there’s certainly a proper role for the localities to have input in the process on issues like noise, lighting and truck traffic, the general jurisdiction of regulating oil and gas activities is most appropriately found at the state level,” he said.
With the federal government mostly staying out of the drilling debate, some states are looking for a middle ground.
Wiseman cited Colorado as an example of a purple state that is seeking compromise. Environmentalists and Democrats decided against sponsoring ballot initiatives on fracking last year, instead agreeing to a task force that is trying to decide how the state and localities can regulate it.
David Spence, a law professor at the University of Texas, predicted states would eventually find a middle ground on fracking.
“You have more opportunities for states to take one or the other extreme position based on their ideology,” he said.
“But I really think in the long run that the more polarized public debate is going to get much less polarized.”
EPA Fracking Study: Drilling Wins
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3297398/posts
The Shale Boom Shifts Into Higher Gear
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3295655/posts
‘No shale gas revolution in Europe’
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3296547/posts
“..The EPA’s report this week finding little evidence of water contamination form fracking has spurred calls for Cuomo to reverse his decision.
Activists in California have put Gov. Jerry Brown (D) under strong pressure to ban fracking there, but have thus far been unsuccessful.
Industry groups fear a patchwork of rules for fracking across municipal lines and want the regulatory questions to be settled on a state-by-state basis...”
I’m not so sure I can agree with the premise. Fracking is very popular here in blue Pennsylvania. If you want to see Pennsylvania vote red in the next presidential election, let the Dem candidate come out against fracking.
Good comment.
The writer either avoided Pennsylvania because he believed it would slip by unnoticed (as it ruins the liberal line) or he didn’t do his homework.
Yet, in their ongoing campaign to sway weak minded voters, the media will do its best to shout down debate and paint voices in opposition to “green” concerns as extreme, anti-science ravings.
Hopefully, reason will prevail as people realize that the economy is being suppressed. “Green” issues do not chart high on voters’ concerns.
It is regional in PA. “The T” is quite red.
“social effects of fracking”?
Is the “social effect” wealth vs. non wealth?
Yep, the EPA under Obama is famous for taking the side of Big Oil.
In case somebody did get it
/S
Perhaps a re-title of the article is in order?? Something along the lines of “Blue state bass-turds volunteer their citizens to freeze to death in the dark”???
PA may have voted rat for President since 1992 but it is best described as a swing state.
As an aside, “red” means commie in my book, these media colors annoy me.
bttt
The divide is not red and blue but sane and insane
the next fundamental change for America is to obliterate the concept of political correctness
Pennsylvania is in Republican control (lousy Republicans) but for the Governor who won be default as the last Republican increased fuel taxes by 28 cents per gallon and failed to privatize our state liquor store system.
Pennsylvania votes Dem for national elections based on the 105% fabricated vote coming out of mostly Philadelphia.
Statewide elections in non-Presidential years tend to go Republican.
It is a great example of liberal fraud.
Yes.
The ones who want a strong country versus those who are anti-American.
Which is precisely why the media types "reversed" the meaning...to avoid having the Democrat candidates associated with socialism.
It bothers me that “our side” by and large doesn’t care, some (the “Redstate” Blog) have even embraced the color scheme. When challenged they say irrelevant nonsense like “red is a powerful color”.
Personally, I don’t care HOW it’s done, enviro dingbats be damned.
Each and every ounce of oil and cubic inch of gas harvested
within, and by the Continental 48, means every penny
less for any of those ‘yo momma ragheads’ in the
middle east.
I know a lot of “red” people against Fraking.
I lived in NY State until after I retired; the difference between blue NY and the PA countryside is like night and day. But that doesn't mean that the least aware voters here are any smarter than the least aware voters in NY.There are gullible voters concentrated in every major city. People who are easily swindled into voting for shadenfreude even when their own best interests are actually damaged by it.
Starve and freeze in the dark, you luddite bastards.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.