101 Reasons that High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing (HVHF) Needs to be Banned in New York State
EACH OF THE FOLLOWING 101 REASONS, IF TAKEN ALONE, IS SUFFICIENT TO BAN HVHF.
TOGETHER THEY INDICATE UNBRIDLED GREED AND APATHY TOWARD LIFE …
GOVERNMENT-APPROVED CORPORATE HOMOCIDE.
WHO IS STANDING ON THE SIDE OF LIFE, TAKING THE ROLE OF PROTECTING AND PROMOTING THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE?
1. If risk to our aquifers were the only reason HVHF needs to be banned, it would be sufficient.
2. If risk to our food quality and supply were the only reason HVHF needs to be banned, it would be sufficient.
3. If risk to our air quality were the only reason HVHF needs to be banned, it would be sufficient.
4. If risk to runaway climate change were the only reason HVHF needs to be banned, it would be sufficient.
5. If HVHF’s externalized costs were the only reason HVHF needs to be banned, it would be sufficient.
6. If the lack of disposal solutions for produced water and drill cuttings were the only reason HVHF needs to be banned, it would be sufficient.
7. If roadways clogged with heavy trucks, moving through established communities were the only reason HVHF needs to be banned, it would be sufficient.
8. If increased crime were the only reason HVHF needs to be banned, it would be sufficient.
9. If increased traffic accidents were the only reason HVHF needs to be banned, it would be sufficient.
10. If jeopardizing the lives of emergency response teams were the only reason HVHF needs to be banned, it would be sufficient.
11. If road damage were the only reason HVHF needs to be banned, it would be sufficient.
12. If deforestation, erosion and sedimentation were the only reason HVHF needs to be banned, it would be sufficient.
13. If increased seismic activity were the only reason HVHF needs to be banned, it would be sufficient.
14. If HVHF issues clogging court calendars were the only reason HVHF needs to be banned, it would be sufficient.
15. If HVHF’s dominating town business were the only reason HVHF needs to be banned, it would be sufficient.
16. If “midnight dumping” were the only reason HVHF needs to be banned, it would be sufficient.
17. If the explosion hazard created by methane migration through fissures and abandoned wells were the only reason HVHF needs to be banned, it would be sufficient.
18. If harmful HVHF chemicals’ posing a threat to life now and in the future were the only reason HVHF needs to be banned, it would be sufficient.
19. If lowered property values were the only reason HVHF needs to be banned, it would be sufficient.
20. If violating the terms of mortgage contracts were the only reason HVHF needs to be banned, it would be sufficient.
21. If risking the loss of home and title insurance were the only reason HVHF needs to be banned, it would be sufficient.
22. If responsibility to our neighbors were the only reason HVHF needs to be banned, it would be sufficient.
23. If increased incidence and severity of asthma and exacerbation of respiratory illnesses were the only reason HVHF needs to be banned, it would be sufficient.
24. If risk to water quality for swimming and fishing were the only reason HVHF needs to be banned, it would be sufficient.
25. If risking our air, water and land while exporting liquid natural gas to other countries were the only reason HVHF needs to be banned, it would be sufficient.
26. If promotion of safe jobs for local citizens were the only reason HVHF needs to be banned, it would be sufficient.
27. If local businesses losing employees due to higher paying HVHF truck-driving jobs were the only reason HVHF needs to be banned, it would be sufficient.
28. If true energy security were the only reason HVHF needs to be banned, it would be sufficient.
29. If increasing economic disparity were the only reason HVHF needs to be banned, it would be sufficient.
30. If relentless noise were the only reason HVHF needs to be banned, it would be sufficient.
31. If toxic odors were the only reason HVHF needs to be banned, it would be sufficient.
32. If visual beauty, physical and spiritual recreation were the only reason HVHF needs to be banned, it would be sufficient.
33. If oil and gas industry’s privatization of profits and socialization of costs were the only reason HVHF needs to be banned, it would be sufficient.
34. If the oil and gas industry’s poor record of accountability were the only reason HVHF needs to be banned, it would be sufficient.
35. If the oil and gas industry’s purchase of politicians’ votes were the only reason HVHF needs to be banned, it would be sufficient.
36. If replacing beautiful productive land with massive industrialization were the only reason HVHF needs to be banned, it would be sufficient.
37. If displacing families from their homes due to industry workers paying higher rents were the only reason HVHF needs to be banned, it would be sufficient.
38. If habitat fragmentation were the only reason HVHF needs to be banned, it would be sufficient.
39. If increased severe weather events, such as flooding were the only reason HVHF needs to be banned, it would be sufficient.
40. If distraction from energy efficiency and renewable energy initiatives were the only reason HVHF needs to be banned, it would be sufficient.
41. If drastically altering community character were the only reason HVHF needs to be banned, it would be sufficient.
42. If the cost of health and environmental damage were the only reason HVHF needs to be banned, it would be sufficient.
43. If contributing to the demise of democracy were the only reason HVHF needs to be banned, it would be sufficient.
44. If the oil and gas industry’s propaganda campaign to deny climate change and promote “clean natural gas” were the only reason HVHF needs to be banned, it would be sufficient.
45. If the industry’s purchase and takeover of our communities were the only reason HVHF needs to be banned, it would be sufficient.
46. If destroying tourism were the only reason HVHF needs to be banned, it would be sufficient.
47. If destroying farmland were the only reason HVHF needs to be banned, it would be sufficient.
48. If forcing university students and professors to leave New York State were the only reason HVHF needs to be banned, it would be sufficient.
49. If forcing families to leave New York State for “greener pastures” were the only reason HVHF needs to be banned, it would be sufficient.
50. If the health and welfare of future generations were the only reason HVHF needs to be banned, it would be sufficient.
51. If distraction from sustainability initiatives were the only reason HVHF needs to be banned, it would be sufficient.
52. If morality of perpetuating extreme fossil fuel extraction were the only reason HVHF needs to be banned, it would be sufficient.
53. If being in alignment with carbon reduction goals were the only reason HVHF needs to be banned, it would be sufficient.
54. If the ability of energy efficiency and renewable energy to fully meet our energy needs were the only reasons HVHF needs to be banned, it would be sufficient.
55. If reducing the number of dangerous jobs were the only reason HVHF needs to be banned, it would be sufficient.
56. If HVHF’s effects on vulnerable populations…children, elderly, disabled were the only reason HVHF needs to be banned, it would be sufficient. were the only reason HVHF need to be banned, it would be sufficient.
57. If disease-creating frac sand (crystalline silica) were the only reason HVHF needs to be banned, it would be sufficient.
58. If high-risk truck-driving from worker fatigue and speeding were the only reason HVHF needs to be banned, it would be sufficient.
59. If forcing landowners to sign non-disclosure agreements when their water becomes undrinkable were the only reason HVHF needs to be banned, it would be sufficient.
60. If bullying landowners – one by one – to sign vague contracts to sacrifice their land were the only reason HVHF needs to be banned, it would be sufficient.
61. If the industry’s use of shell companies to hide their identity and scam the public were the only reason HVHF needs to be banned, it would be sufficient.
62. If compulsory integration were the only reason HVHF needs to be banned, it would be sufficient.
63. If the lack of meaningful penalties for environmental damage were the only reason HVHF needs to be banned, it would be sufficient.
64. If the vulnerability of milk to contamination were the only reason HVHF needs to be banned, it would be sufficient.
65. If the vulnerability of meat, vegetables, fruit, and grains to contamination were the only reason HVHF needs to be banned, it would be sufficient.
66. If the industry’s use of predatory tactics and strategies were the only reason HVHF needs to be banned, it would be sufficient.
67. If pitting neighbor against neighbor were the only reason HVHF needs to be banned, it would be sufficient.
68. If radioactive waste were the only reason HVHF needs to be banned, it would be sufficient.
69. If DEC’s conflicting goals to protect the environment and develop mineral resources were the only reason HVHF needs to be banned, it would be sufficient.
70. If DEC’s inadequate regulatory staffing were the only reason HVHF needs to be banned, it would be sufficient.
71. If over 5 million gallons of water per frac being permanently removed from the hydrologic cycle were the only reason HVHF needs to be banned, it would be sufficient.
72. If the fact that approximately 12 per cent of wells leak initially and a higher percentage of wells leak eventually were the only reason HVHF needs to be banned, it would be sufficient.
73. If the oil and gas Industry’s exemption from the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act were the only reason HVHF needs to be banned, it would be sufficient.
74. If the oil and gas industry’s exemption from the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act were the only reason HVHF needs to be banned, it would be sufficient.
75. If the oil and gas industry’s exemption from the Safe Drinking Water Act were the only reason HVHF needs to be banned, it would be sufficient.
76. If the oil and gas industry’s exemption from the Clean Water Act were the only reason HVHF needs to be banned, it would be sufficient.
77. If the oil and gas industry’s exemption from the Clean Air Act were the only reason HVHF needs to be banned, it would be sufficient.
78. If the oil and gas industry’s exemption from the National Environmental Policy Act were the only reason HVHF needs to be banned, it would be sufficient.
79. If the oil and gas industry’s exemption from the Toxic Relase Inventory under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act were the only reason HVHF needs to be banned, it would be sufficient.
80. If the push to treat produced water at sewage treatment facilities before releasing it into rivers and streams were the only reason HVHF needs to be banned, it would be sufficient.
81. If the evidence of HVHF’s negative impact throughout the world were the only reason HVHF needs to be banned, it would be sufficient.
82. If this issue’s ability to polarize the public were the only reason HVHF needs to be banned, it would be sufficient.
83. If HVHF’s ability to create reality-based public fear and a feeling of powerlessness were the only reason HVHF needs to be banned, it would be sufficient.
84. If trumping creative earth-friendly economic initiatives were the only reason HVHF needs to be banned, it would be sufficient.
85. If the impact of the massive web of pipelines, compressor stations, metering stations, distillation units, storage facilities, access roads and number of wells and well-pads per mile were the only reason HVHF needs to be banned, it would be sufficient.
86. If HVHF’s short and long-term cumulative effects were the only reason HVHF needs to be banned, it would be sufficient.
87. If the diversion of activists from meaningful, life-enriching activities were the only reason HVHF needs to be banned, it would be sufficient.
88. If alignment with Governor Cuomo’s statement that “All watersheds are sacrosanct” were the only reason HVHF needs to be banned, it would be sufficient.
89. If alignment with Governor Cuomo’s promise that the decision on whether or not we do HVHF rests on science were the only reason HVHF needs to be banned, it would be sufficient.
90. If alignment with Governor Cuomo’s statement, “New York State must ensure that, if and when the Shale’s natural gas is obtained, it does not come at the expense of human health or have adverse environmental impacts.” were the only reason HVHF needs to be banned, it would be sufficient.
91. If alignment with President Barack Obama’s statement that, “our continued use of fossil fuels is pushing us to a point of no return. And unless we free ourselves from a dependence on these fossil fuels and chart a new course on energy in this country, we are condemning future generations to global catastrophe.” were the only reason HVHF needs to be banned, it would be sufficient.
92. If the disparity in the number of oil and gas industry lobbyists versus energy efficiency and renewable energy lobbyists were the only reason HVHF needs to be banned, it would be sufficient.
93. If the unlevel playing field that favors heavy industry, created by IDA funding, tax breaks, and incentives were the only reason HVHF needs to be banned, it would be sufficient.
94. If the oil and gas industry’s challenges to Home Rule were the only reason HVHF needs to be banned, it would be sufficient.
95. If adhering to the “triple-bottom-line” of the environment, society, and economy were the only reason HVHF needs to be banned, it would be sufficient.
96. If the Occupy Movement’s existence and demands were the only reason HVHF needs to be banned, it would be sufficient.
97. If self-preservation were the only reason HVHF needs to be banned, it would be sufficient.
98. If love of our families and friends were the only reason HVHF needs to be banned, it would be sufficient.
99. If advocacy for human rights were the only reason HVHF needs to be banned, it would be sufficient.
100. If our right to local self-government were the only reason HVHF needs to be banned, it would be sufficient.
101. If DEC’s mission “To conserve, improve and protect New York’s natural resources and environment and to prevent, abate and control water, land and air pollution, in order to enhance the health, safety and welfare of the people of the state and their overall economic and social well-being” were the only reason HVHF needs to be banned, it would be sufficient.