California Democrats, who control the state, cite different reasons for supporting some level of fracking—now and in the future. In Brown’s case, he says that climate change is one of the most pressing challenges that California faces, but until sufficient alternative energy sources and new ways for people to live are deployed on a mass scale, he won’t oppose fracking. The five senators who intentionally skipped May’s moratorium vote have said that they back fracking because it will bring future high-paying jobs. The motives of Democrats voting no, or not voting at all, are not hard to discern, Stewart said. They’re all taking a path laid out by oil and gas lobbyists. Those voting no received campaign donations—14 times more than senators who voted yes. More important was the whispering campaign of re-election threats, he said. “The oil industry keeps repeating that these are good jobs,” Stewart said, followed by, “You don’t want an opponent who may be well-financed.” This is not to say that California’s oil and gas industry has gotten everything—but it’s not complaining. Last fall, the Legislature passed and Brown signed a very watered-down bill creating new regulatory hurdles for natural gas fracking and acidizing, or loosening rocks containing oil. It requires permits for new drilling, notice to nearby residents, disclosing chemicals used, measuring groundwater and air quality, and other studies. But, critically, it allows current drilling to continue and doesn’t impose new barriers to fracking. Ten other fracking bills died in the Legislature in the past year, Stewart said. This political landscape is only part of what is challenging California environmentalists. Across the country, the largest climate change campaigns have focused on blocking the Keystone XL pipeline, which would take very dirty oil from Canada to the U.S. In states along the north-western Appalachian mountains—Pennsylvania, Ohio, New York—many local government boards have tried to block the fracking industry from siezing property, running roughshod over their zoning, and polluting the groundwater and air. In some states, such as Oklahoma, fracking—which uses water and chemicals injected under very high pressure to fracture the substructure to release gas—has led to unprecedented earthquakes. In California, the politics have been discouraging. Right after the state Democratic Convention, Brown, who likes to avoid talking about fracking as much as he likes to tout California’s progress on climate change, was asked about the protesters’ main point—you cannot be pro-fracking while taking steps to slow climate change. “The premise of that assertion is that climate change is primarily about fracking. And that’s the most absurd idea I’ve ever heard,” he told a statewide public radio audience. “The key point here, that most people have in their minds, is fracking the Monterey Shale. Nobody’s doing that. At best, it’s several years [away] if it ever happens. And it can’t happen until a major and the first serious scientific study, to an environmental impact analysis that I required by a law I signed two months ago, is done.” California environmentalists say that Brown is being coy. In a 2013 press conference on the budget, Brown said that he has “some sympathy” for oil drilling because California is a state of drivers and commuters. “Until we get them in electric cars, or walking or riding their bikes, we need oil. But we’ve got to get off it. Climate change is very real.”
Posted on: Tue, 08 Jul 2014 07:40:51 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015