May 1, 2015
seen from Netherlands
seen from United States
seen from Singapore
seen from Japan
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from China
seen from Singapore
seen from China
seen from China
seen from Singapore
seen from Japan
seen from United Kingdom
seen from Japan
seen from China
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from China
seen from United States
seen from Bulgaria
Concept Map
Gasland Summary
Potential Ramifications:
Rachel Carson, James Cooper, Greg Glasgow, Ryan Nangle
Gasland
Article 1: Environmental Working Group
Scientific: In Gasland, I believe that a major problem was that there was very little discussion of actual science. The spotlight mainly focused on how the natural gas corporation wanted to deny the public the ability to know what chemicals the corporations are pumping into the ground. Yes, they did discuss how hydraulic fracturing was done in terms of the physical drill and pump, but there was still a lot of resistance by the corporation before they submitted to releasing the list of chemicals used in fracking. A chemical analysis from the water of homes surrounding the fracking wells indicates that there are known carcinogens and toxins in the water. Also, I believe that five out of the seven investigators that called off the EPA investigation had no scientific background and ties with the natural gas corporations themselves. The fact that natural gas corporations are legally allowed to behave in environmentally and socially destructive way invokes a much more political argument than a scientific one. However I believe that factual knowledge should rarely ever be withheld by a corporation. It gives them too much anonymity for them to remain just by rational accounts.
Political:The political realm of oil and gas is one that intertwines all political sectors including the ones who are suppose to be regulating the industry. With politicians needing funds to run their campaigns, large oil and gas companies make large donations to politicians who support their industry’s policies. This causes a conflict in interest whenever the natural gas companies are accused of mismanagement of their facilities. The EPA is the government facility that is suppose to regulate the fracking industry. In “Gasland”, the narrator points out that the majority of the EPA officials who testified at the New York council session had either ties or conflicts of interest in the natural gas industry. With millions of dollars set aside for lobbying, the natural gas industry has a huge advantage over environmental groups who are trying to get the companies to be more transparent in their methods. A major change in the Waterway treatment bill in the early 2000s gave natural gas companies leeway to dump hundreds of chemicals into America’s streams and rivers untreated. The bill passed with the push from the Vice President at that time, Dick Cheney, who had major ties to the energy industry. The Environmental Working Group article describes how the EPA does not have enough power to regulate the fracking industry and that it needs to assert more political power over the natural gas industry. The regulation of the natural gas industry is a huge political web that has conflicts of interest on both sides of the argument.
Social: The movie Gasland was inherently social and its goal was to bring awareness to the issue of fracking’s effect on the environment and the people living in areas that are near it. Fox brought attention to the subject by exploring areas that were experiencing the effects of fracking first hand. He also brought media attention by creating the movie, and it could be said that because he brought the nations eye to the issue he inspired other people to create other documentaries and actual movies like Promise Land. Fracking itself is also having effects on society as a whole because of what it does to our water supply. It could create areas of land that are unsafe to live in or use. This could force some people to lose the homes and all they have. Also due to the contamination of the water we cannot be sure of the health effects of drinking it. Also we cannot be sure the health effects of consuming food that was given the contaminated water. All the food that is grown or raised in areas where the water is contaminated may now also be contaminated. The article we read also briefly mentions how the EPA, and congress has to protect the drinking water of the American people by watching over the fracking industry.
Public: The natural gas extraction industry is an incredibly contained and hidden branch of energy production. Little research has been conducted to investigate the production process and its environmental effects, and what little data has been collected is often withheld from the public. However, when corporate leaders are directly prompted to release information regarding the “safe” fracking process, they continuously attempt to circumnavigate its release in until they are legally obligated. For example, in Gasland, the narrator expresses multiple attempts to contact corporate spokespeople to discuss the fracking process and was met with constant voicemails, or representatives claiming they would relay the message and how he should expect to hear back shortly. Not only do the fracking corporations constrain information regarding the gas collection process, they also have a strong hand in preventing any claims regarding any negative consequences experienced in the local community by hastily settling with the victims to prevent their cases from spreading to the media. While such corporate settlements are common practice in successful business, the fact these settlements are argued over cases lacking user error is what is striking. This strict censorship has helped in maintaining the image the corporations hold in the eyes of the average American not directly affected by the effects of fracking. Specifically, in the movie, no press attended the post-meeting press conference held in New York City on the subject. The private nature may not be entirely intentional on behalf of mal-natured gas corporations, but rather an example of the lax legislation currently governing the industry.
Individual: Fracking has a major impact not only on the energy sector, but also on the lives of the people around the wells. With major health risks associated to natural gas, individuals who lease their land to the energy companies are beginning to worry. Many natural gas wells are on agricultural property. Farmers are starting to worry about their crops and livestock due to contaminated water. Farm animals are the farmers’ way of live, and if they are not healthy by the time the market opens the farmers will not be able to sell their livestock. People who just live near natural gas wells are at risk of multiple health problems due to the water and air around the wells. They cannot move because other people do not want to live near the gas wells. Many people had to stop using their water wells and had to start hauling water from Wal-Mart and other grocery stores. If they have livestock, people have to use their wells because they cannot afford to buy clean water for their animals. The lively hoods and lifestyles of the people living near the natural gas wells are being threatened by the promise of a “cleaner” and more efficient energy source.
How fracking relates to our group:
While multiple members of our group have family members employed in the energy industry, we personally have not experienced any of the effects of fracking as it has not occurred in our hometowns. With that being said, we all have the potential to be affected by the long-term, indirect consequences, such as air, water pollution, and other environmental effects the fracking process may induce on a local, national, and global scale.
Five Questions:
How much of the movie was actual, and how much was dramatized?
Can we watch FrackNation and other sources that have an opposing view?
How much has changed since this documentary was made?
Have any instances similar to this ever happened before? What was the result?
Can we take opposing positions to the issue when we write future assignments on the topic?
Reblog 7
Evolution is one of the most confirmed and rejected theories in the public’s eye. When Darwin published his theory, he was worried about being rejected by the scientific community because it went against the very grain of the creation theory. Darwin’s theory is now the basis for many scientific discoveries about the origins of species. Though the scientific community accepts the theory of evolution, many people reject it and believe in the creation theory written in the Book of Genesis.
“How Bill Nye Won the Creation Debate” is an article in the Huffington Post that reported on the debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham about the origins of Earth and Evolution. Bill Nye’s evidence proving evolution were fossils that could not have formed if there was a yearlong flood during the time Creationists believe Noah built the Arc. Ken Ham defended the Creationist theory by quoting Genesis and stating that “historical science” is always up to interpretation because it cannot be definitively proven.1
Though scientists have multiple sources of evidence and years of research documented, the theory of evolution is still questioned by part of the public. The debate is related to the second article because creationists seem to want first hand accounts of evolution to believe in the theory. In the 1960s, the public started doubting scientific research and Young Earth Creationism took off. Since then, thirteen states have implemented curriculum in public schools teaching creationism.
In the cold fusion article, once the scientists published their findings their peers started trying to replicate their experiment. When this did not happen, the cold fusion scientists recanted and the scientific community moved on. There have been hundreds of studies done to prove the theory of evolution, and some scientific fields are devoted to further researching Darwin’s initial observations. Creationists do not have any material proof that their theories are correct or that the theory of evolution is wrong, but they refuse to acknowledge the research done on evolution.
Trust is essential in convincing someone that you are right. Scientists have an up hill battle full of twists and turns when trying to convince the public that their findings are true. The backing of the scientific community is not enough for a large portion of the public to believe in a new discovery or a change in the norm. When there is a competing theory in the public’s eye, it is even harder for scientists to gain approval.
MacMillan, D. (2014, February 12). How Bill Nye Won the Creation Debate. Retrieved March 26, 2015, from
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-macmillan/bill-nye-creation-debate_b_4775207.html