Fracking Banned In New Jersey/ S-2576

Tim Scolnick Fracking Banned In New Jersey
On Friday, New Jersey legislators unanimously voted for S-2576, a bill which prohibits hydraulic fracturing (a.k.a. fracking) for natural gas in the state.

S-2576 is largely symbolic since New Jersey does not use fracking to drill for natural gas. This bill does, however, send a clear message to the industry as well as neighbouring states looking to tap into the Marcellus Shale formation which reaches into New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia and northwestern N.J.
In February, New York announced it will lift its 7-month moratorium on fracking in June despite public opposition and nearly two weeks ago, Pennsylvania’s Republican Governor Tom Corbett overturned a de-facto ban on leasing sensitive forest land for shale gas development. Additionally, the New Jersey decision to ban dangerous fracking is timely since the Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC), an intra-state agency overseeing the health of the Delaware River, is presently drafting regulations to control how and where fracking may proceed in the River’s bordering states.

As the New York Times has revealed, hydraulic fracturing poses a significant risk to water quality, public health and the environment.. The claim that gas is “clean” energy is also challenged by the sizable amounts of global warming pollution, comparable to coal, emitted in the entire life cycle of gas production and consumption.

In a Senate hearing earlier in the week, fracking lobbyists argued that Marcellus Shale offers vast and cheap reserves of natural gas. Ed Waters, Director of government affairs for the Chemistry Industry Council of New Jersey said, "If we don’t have that cheap supply of natural gas, we can’t compete in the global markets."

Sen. Bob Smith (D-Middlesex), Chairman of the Environment Committee, accepted that natural gas seems on the surface to represent a cheap supply of energy, but countered that:

Nova Scotia

Hydraulic Fracturing: Factsheet | Ecology Action Centre

The most serious concerns with fracking are that:

•it involves large quantities of water;
•relies on toxic chemicals;
•involves clearing the land of trees and vegetation; and
•leaves toxins in the ground to interact with drinking water.
These impacts are done all in the name of an energy resource that is neither cheaper nor cleaner.

The Ecology Action Centre cares about our water, our land and our people. This document will provide an introduction to the technique, and concludes that it is a method not suitable for Nova Scotia.

1.What is Fracking?
2.Fracking Requires Massive Amounts of Water
3.Fracking Uses Toxic Chemicals That Threaten the Environment and People
4.Fracking Is Linked to Drinking Water Contamination
5.Fracking Produces Toxic Waste That Cannot Be Treated in Nova Scotia
6.Fracking has a Negative Impact on Ecosystems
7.Fracking is Coming to Nova Scotia

Fracking the life out of Arkansas and beyond | Food Freedom

Fracking the life out of Arkansas and beyond | Food Freedom
7 UPDATE: Missing from this report is the information that the US military apparently drilled 500 deep wells in Central Arkansas to dispose of phosgene, a highly toxic gas that causes the respiratory system to explode. (As reported below, deep well drilling causes earthquakes.) According to the EU Times, Russia’s spy agency, GRU, reported that the US relocated 63,000 metric tons of phosgene from Iraq to the Arkansas’ Pine Bluff Arsenal, the nation’s premier chemical and bio weapons lab. Some or most of this material was and continues to be relocated to Afghanistan.

The GRU report claims that while transporting the gas via a US Air Force KC-767 tanker aircraft, a “malfunction” occurred in the aerial spraying system on December 30, killing 100,000 fish along a 20-mile stretch of the Arkansas River near Roseville. The next day, on another KC-767, again the aerial spraying system “malfunctioned” killing 5,000 blackbirds near Beebe.

Transborder Water Issues Canada/USA

Congenial relations between the United States and Canada have long been a source of pride for both countries. We characteristically speak about being each other's largest trading partners, and about the degree to which we have a shared, peaceful border. Over the years, the two countries have created a number of mechanisms for dealing with cross-boundary environmental matters relating to air, water and migratory wildlife.

One of the great accomplishments of the bilateral relationship between Canada and the United States in the past century has been the cooperative management of the many lakes and rivers that flow along and across our common boundary. The International Joint Commission (IJC) has provided a mechanism for joint management of the St. Lawrence Seaway, the Great Lakes, and other boundary and transboundary waters. Two binational agreements, The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement and the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909 have provided a framework for IJC undertakings.

But signs of disharmony in trade and environmental relations between the two countries have recently surfaced. Ongoing and potential conflict over water, or trade that is dependent on water, has become a political reality in Canada. Water scarcity has already affected many areas of the United States, and a few parts of Canada. The reasons for these shortages include increasing population, industrial development, climate warming, poor agricultural practices, poor prevention of water pollution, and watershed modification.

POWI has conducted research in a number of key areas relating to transboundary water. These include:

Legal instruments to protect Canada's waters from out of basin transfers