Saturday, February 27, 2010
Sunday, February 14, 2010
My Op-Ed piece about Natural Gas drilling
Did Somebody Put Something in the Water in Albany?
By Tyler Caruso
As a Master’s student in an Environmental Policy and Sustainability program, I have worked hard to cling to a small reserve of hope for the future, even with all the mounting evidence that we have backed ourselves into somewhat of an environmental dooms day scenario. My hope was rooted in the belief that we as a country are moving (albeit slowly) towards a more sustainable future. However recent happenings in Albany have begun to erode away at that hope, as Governor Patterson continues to lend his support to Hydraulic fracturing ( natural gas drilling). The good news is that New York City at the close of 2009 officially registered its opposition to hydraulic fracturing in its watershed, which supplies drinking water to more than 9 million residents of NYC.
Currently New York City is one of only four cities in the country that the EPA allows drinking water to flow unfiltered. Hydraulic fracturing posses the threat of contaminating NYC’s water supply, which the Department of Environmental Protection has invested over $1.5 billion dollars in protecting. If drilling is permitted our water supply could be laced with a toxic brew of chemicals and once these chemicals find their way into a water supply, they are nearly impossible to filter out. Governor Patterson and the state legislation need to take pause and answer if natural gas drilling is really the way to move NYS towards its current goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent by 2050.
Natural Gas the new Clean and Clear Energy Alternative?
Natural gas companies have spread their claims far and wide that natural gas is the new “clean” and “clear” energy alternative to ‘older’ ‘dirtier’ fossil fuels like coal and oil. In a society as industrialized and developed as ours it’s easy to only think about products in their market-ready state, never weighing their extraction and production process as part of the big picture while evaluating their environmental impacts. These drilling operations are highly industrial in nature; with large numbers of diesel engines running 24/7 producing noise and large amounts of exhaust. Drilling has also been documented to have a very negative impact on air quality, with unacceptable ozone contribution, methane releases and extremely large amounts of green house gas emissions.
What exactly is HydroFracking?
Hydraulic Fracturing or Hydro-Fracking is the method of pumping large amounts of locally sourced fresh water, sand and a blend of proprietary chemicals, at high pressure into the ground vertically and horizontally. The pumping fractures the shale and releases the trapped natural gas, letting it ‘flow’ upwards through the well. The complete list of chemicals injected during hydo-fracking were not made publicly available in the draft SGEIS on the claim that such information constitutes proprietary trade secrets of the mining company.
In a paper by Lindsay Speers she reports,
In a statement from the NY Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) it is written that,
There have been many instances of drinking water contamination resulting from hydro-fracking that have been documented. A 2009 EPA study of drinking water in Pavilion, Wyoming documented contamination from hydro-fracking in at least 11 household wells. In Dimock, PA in 2008, a water well exploded from methane contamination from nearby hydro-fracking and many others have been rendered undrinkable and the list goes on and on.
The Gas Companies Promise- 100% safe
The drilling companies assure us that this process is totally safe- and they have somehow managed to convince Albany that all possibilities of human and mechanical error have been abated. We need to take a step backwards and consider the potential consequences we as New Yorker’s will bear if drilling is allowed and contamination ensues: We will have to: 1) Build a costly filtration plant, which according to the DEP would cost a minimum of $10 billion, 2) This new water treatment plant will need energy to filter our now polluted waters and we would then be in the ironic position of supplying this new plant with energy for it’s construction and maintenance (which theoretically could be supplied by the same gas we drilled for in the first place) and 3) Once all the natural gas has run out, which it will, we’ll be right back where we started and we will still have pay for the maintenance and upkeep this plant. I would like to ask the good folks up in Albany if they can really stand behind drilling, as moving the state’s energy policy in the right direction. Instead of investing further in the extraction of the remaining fossil fuels, our state, and nation should be developing energy policies which will move us to totally renewable sources, such as solar and wind and set a global example of what is possible. I urge everyone to contact Governor Patterson and demand a ban on gas drilling in NY State.
By Tyler Caruso
As a Master’s student in an Environmental Policy and Sustainability program, I have worked hard to cling to a small reserve of hope for the future, even with all the mounting evidence that we have backed ourselves into somewhat of an environmental dooms day scenario. My hope was rooted in the belief that we as a country are moving (albeit slowly) towards a more sustainable future. However recent happenings in Albany have begun to erode away at that hope, as Governor Patterson continues to lend his support to Hydraulic fracturing ( natural gas drilling). The good news is that New York City at the close of 2009 officially registered its opposition to hydraulic fracturing in its watershed, which supplies drinking water to more than 9 million residents of NYC.
Currently New York City is one of only four cities in the country that the EPA allows drinking water to flow unfiltered. Hydraulic fracturing posses the threat of contaminating NYC’s water supply, which the Department of Environmental Protection has invested over $1.5 billion dollars in protecting. If drilling is permitted our water supply could be laced with a toxic brew of chemicals and once these chemicals find their way into a water supply, they are nearly impossible to filter out. Governor Patterson and the state legislation need to take pause and answer if natural gas drilling is really the way to move NYS towards its current goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent by 2050.
Natural Gas the new Clean and Clear Energy Alternative?
Natural gas companies have spread their claims far and wide that natural gas is the new “clean” and “clear” energy alternative to ‘older’ ‘dirtier’ fossil fuels like coal and oil. In a society as industrialized and developed as ours it’s easy to only think about products in their market-ready state, never weighing their extraction and production process as part of the big picture while evaluating their environmental impacts. These drilling operations are highly industrial in nature; with large numbers of diesel engines running 24/7 producing noise and large amounts of exhaust. Drilling has also been documented to have a very negative impact on air quality, with unacceptable ozone contribution, methane releases and extremely large amounts of green house gas emissions.
What exactly is HydroFracking?
Hydraulic Fracturing or Hydro-Fracking is the method of pumping large amounts of locally sourced fresh water, sand and a blend of proprietary chemicals, at high pressure into the ground vertically and horizontally. The pumping fractures the shale and releases the trapped natural gas, letting it ‘flow’ upwards through the well. The complete list of chemicals injected during hydo-fracking were not made publicly available in the draft SGEIS on the claim that such information constitutes proprietary trade secrets of the mining company.
In a paper by Lindsay Speers she reports,
“The findings of scientists at ‘The Endocrine Disruption Exchange’ show that nearly all of those soluble chemicals are known skin, eye, and sensory organ irritants, and cause respiratory, gastrointestinal, and liver distress. Approximately 75% affect the brain, nervous system, and the cardiovascular system. Nearly half of them affect the kidneys, immune system, cause developmental difficulties, and have known ecological effects. And most importantly, a third of the chemicals are known carcinogens, endocrine disruptors, mutagens, and/or affect the reproductive system”.
In a statement from the NY Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) it is written that,
“…The chemicals used as part of the process are injected into the subsurface rock formations and can travel along underground fissures to ground water and ultimately streams that feed reservoirs…In addition, the resulting wastewater- potentially 1 billion gallons per year- can also contaminate water supplies. Currently there is no way to locally treat this wastewater” (DEP 12/12/09).
There have been many instances of drinking water contamination resulting from hydro-fracking that have been documented. A 2009 EPA study of drinking water in Pavilion, Wyoming documented contamination from hydro-fracking in at least 11 household wells. In Dimock, PA in 2008, a water well exploded from methane contamination from nearby hydro-fracking and many others have been rendered undrinkable and the list goes on and on.
The Gas Companies Promise- 100% safe
The drilling companies assure us that this process is totally safe- and they have somehow managed to convince Albany that all possibilities of human and mechanical error have been abated. We need to take a step backwards and consider the potential consequences we as New Yorker’s will bear if drilling is allowed and contamination ensues: We will have to: 1) Build a costly filtration plant, which according to the DEP would cost a minimum of $10 billion, 2) This new water treatment plant will need energy to filter our now polluted waters and we would then be in the ironic position of supplying this new plant with energy for it’s construction and maintenance (which theoretically could be supplied by the same gas we drilled for in the first place) and 3) Once all the natural gas has run out, which it will, we’ll be right back where we started and we will still have pay for the maintenance and upkeep this plant. I would like to ask the good folks up in Albany if they can really stand behind drilling, as moving the state’s energy policy in the right direction. Instead of investing further in the extraction of the remaining fossil fuels, our state, and nation should be developing energy policies which will move us to totally renewable sources, such as solar and wind and set a global example of what is possible. I urge everyone to contact Governor Patterson and demand a ban on gas drilling in NY State.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Monday, February 8, 2010
Sunday, February 7, 2010
Relational Form
From Relational Aesthetics - Nicolas Bourriaud (1998)
"Otherwise put, the role of artworks is no longer to form imaginary and utopian realties, but to actually be ways of living and models of action within the existing real, whatever the scale chosen by the artist. Althusser said that one always catches the world's train on the move; Deleuze, that "grass grows from the middle" and not from the bottom or the top. The artist dwells in the circumstances the present offers him,so as to turn the setting of his life (his links with the physical and conceptual world) into a lasting world. He catches the world on the move:
he is a tenant of culture, to borrow Michel de Certeau's expression'. Nowadays, modernity extends into the practices of cultural do-it-yourself and recycling, into the invention of the everyday and the development of time lived, which are not objects less deserving of attention and examination than Messianistic utopias and the formal "novelties" that typified modernity yesterday. There is nothing more absurd either than the assertion that contemporary art does not involve any political project, or than the claim that its subversive aspects are not based on any theoretical terrain. Its plan, which has just as much to do with working conditions and the conditions in which cultural objects are produced, as with the changing forms of social life, may
nevertheless seem dull to minds formed in the mould of cultural Darwinism. Here, then, is the time of the "dolce utopia", to use Maurizio Cattelan's phrase... "
"Otherwise put, the role of artworks is no longer to form imaginary and utopian realties, but to actually be ways of living and models of action within the existing real, whatever the scale chosen by the artist. Althusser said that one always catches the world's train on the move; Deleuze, that "grass grows from the middle" and not from the bottom or the top. The artist dwells in the circumstances the present offers him,so as to turn the setting of his life (his links with the physical and conceptual world) into a lasting world. He catches the world on the move:
he is a tenant of culture, to borrow Michel de Certeau's expression'. Nowadays, modernity extends into the practices of cultural do-it-yourself and recycling, into the invention of the everyday and the development of time lived, which are not objects less deserving of attention and examination than Messianistic utopias and the formal "novelties" that typified modernity yesterday. There is nothing more absurd either than the assertion that contemporary art does not involve any political project, or than the claim that its subversive aspects are not based on any theoretical terrain. Its plan, which has just as much to do with working conditions and the conditions in which cultural objects are produced, as with the changing forms of social life, may
nevertheless seem dull to minds formed in the mould of cultural Darwinism. Here, then, is the time of the "dolce utopia", to use Maurizio Cattelan's phrase... "
Monday, February 1, 2010
Toxic Waters- amazing NY Times Series
The NY times toxic waters series.
My relationship to the NY Times is tenuous- while I think they do bring up important issues i feel that their slant is always far less urgent or revealing then the situation merits (especially anything they've written around Natural Gas Drilling)- However with their Toxic Water Series I must admit they've done a wonderful job. I first noticed this series with their front page story around drinking water with the little boy's teeth, it also really helped hit home the failure of NYC's CSS system- and showed very plainly all the CSOs stating clearly- that virtually every time it rains in NYC it pollutes. However the most interesting article I read was the one I posted to our news forum- about La's water. I had actually just returned from a Grey water installer's workshop in LA- when I read that article in the airport! That reservoir is a few mins drive from my friends house (the one where they put all the black plastic balls)- and i kept thinking I drank that water. And to lesson to all the people who object to the Dr's work- it baffles me. I really don't understand their argument. Also the Clean Water Act- I really don't understand how we can be following an out dated law- that 1) we don't properly enforce and also 2) when environmental conditions are rapidly changing (or degrading) and we are also probably dealing with a whole host of new chemicals, dynamic industries and also years of all these chemicals interacting with each other....the series has a great link on the left side that allows you to search by state what contaminants in our water supply- even thought it met two standards: the legal limits established by the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the typically stricter health guidelines. The data was collected by an advocacy organization, the Environmental Working Group, who shared it with The Times.
In the Catskill/Delaware system (I live in Brooklyn):
Trichloroacetic acid levels were below legal limits, but above health guidelines
11 contaminants found within health guidelines and legal limits: Bromodichloromethane, Chloroform, Copper, Dibromoacetic acid, Dibromochloromethane, Dichloroacetic acid, Lead (total), Monobromoacetic acid, Monochloroacetic acid, Total haloacetic acids (HAAs), Total trihalomethanes (TTHMs)
2 contaminants tested for but not found: Arsenic (total), Bromoform
Who puts in place the health regulations vs the Safe Drinking water act? What are NYCs health regulations- how does it compare to other cities? How are the people who regulate the health regulations hired or voted in?
I then clicked on another link to a drinking water quality report shows by the water utility and provided to the Environmental Working Group (EWG) by the New York Department of Health- Bureau of Public Water Supply Protection. It is in the next post which shows their results.
My relationship to the NY Times is tenuous- while I think they do bring up important issues i feel that their slant is always far less urgent or revealing then the situation merits (especially anything they've written around Natural Gas Drilling)- However with their Toxic Water Series I must admit they've done a wonderful job. I first noticed this series with their front page story around drinking water with the little boy's teeth, it also really helped hit home the failure of NYC's CSS system- and showed very plainly all the CSOs stating clearly- that virtually every time it rains in NYC it pollutes. However the most interesting article I read was the one I posted to our news forum- about La's water. I had actually just returned from a Grey water installer's workshop in LA- when I read that article in the airport! That reservoir is a few mins drive from my friends house (the one where they put all the black plastic balls)- and i kept thinking I drank that water. And to lesson to all the people who object to the Dr's work- it baffles me. I really don't understand their argument. Also the Clean Water Act- I really don't understand how we can be following an out dated law- that 1) we don't properly enforce and also 2) when environmental conditions are rapidly changing (or degrading) and we are also probably dealing with a whole host of new chemicals, dynamic industries and also years of all these chemicals interacting with each other....the series has a great link on the left side that allows you to search by state what contaminants in our water supply- even thought it met two standards: the legal limits established by the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the typically stricter health guidelines. The data was collected by an advocacy organization, the Environmental Working Group, who shared it with The Times.
In the Catskill/Delaware system (I live in Brooklyn):
Trichloroacetic acid levels were below legal limits, but above health guidelines
11 contaminants found within health guidelines and legal limits: Bromodichloromethane, Chloroform, Copper, Dibromoacetic acid, Dibromochloromethane, Dichloroacetic acid, Lead (total), Monobromoacetic acid, Monochloroacetic acid, Total haloacetic acids (HAAs), Total trihalomethanes (TTHMs)
2 contaminants tested for but not found: Arsenic (total), Bromoform
Who puts in place the health regulations vs the Safe Drinking water act? What are NYCs health regulations- how does it compare to other cities? How are the people who regulate the health regulations hired or voted in?
I then clicked on another link to a drinking water quality report shows by the water utility and provided to the Environmental Working Group (EWG) by the New York Department of Health- Bureau of Public Water Supply Protection. It is in the next post which shows their results.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
