Pittsburgh Adopts Ordinance Banning Natural Gas Development Citing Fracking Threat
The Pittsburgh City Council this week unanimously adopted a first-in-the-nation ordinance banning corporations from drilling for natural gas within city limits, citing the threats to drinking water and public health posed by hydraulic fracturing methods used widely by drilling companies to extract natural gas from the Marcellus Shale.
Pittsburgh City Council President Darlene Harris said her biggest concern about natural gas fracking involves the threat to people's health posed by water contaminated by Marcellus drilling. She noted that the gas industry's claims about creating the thousands of jobs isn't worth the risk.
"They're bringing jobs all right," Harris told CBS News. "There's going to be a lot of jobs for funeral homes and hospitals. That's where the jobs are. Is it worth it?"
Beyond its innovative approach to fighting the fracking threat, the ordinance - drafted by the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund (CELDF) - seeks to limit the claim of "personhood" by corporations and to elevate the rights of property owners and other living, breathing citizens above the interests of corporations.
According to Pittsburgh Councilman Doug Shields, who introduced the measure, “This ordinance recognizes and secures expanded civil rights for the people of Pittsburgh, and it prohibits activities which would violate those rights. It protects the authority of the people of Pittsburgh to pass this ordinance by undoing corporate privileges that place the rights of the people of Pittsburgh at the mercy of gas corporations.”
CELDF summarizes the main threats posed by fracking in the Marcellus shale region:
"Energy corporations are setting up shop in communities across Pennsylvania, to drill for natural gas in the Marcellus Shale formation. The gas extraction technique known as “fracking” has been cited as a threat to surface and groundwater, and has been blamed for fatal explosions, the contamination of drinking water, local rivers, and streams. Collateral damage includes lost property value, ingestion of toxins by livestock, drying up of mortgage loans for prospective home buyers, and threatened loss of organic certification for farmers in affected communities."
Many communities in Pennsylvania and across the U.S. have had their water supplies, health and property rights threatened by natural gas development. Natural gas has been touted widely by politicians, businesses and even some environmentalists as a clean replacement for oil and coal. But with the fracking threat that comes along with natural gas development, public opinion about the rapid expansion of natural gas dependence is increasingly mixed.
What do you think? Is natural gas the energy panacea its proponents claim, or is fracking too risky to make natural gas a viable "bridge" fuel?
Photo: Domestic water well explosion in Dimock, Pennsylvania.
Brendan DeMelle is a freelance author and researcher focusing primarily on clean energy and has over a decade of experience in energy and environmental issues. He previously served as Research Associate for Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. at the Natural Resources Defense Council.
Any opinion contained in this article is solely that of the writers, and does not necessarily shape or reflect the editorial opinions of Energy Boom. Energy Boom content is for informational purposes only and is not intended to be advice regarding the investment merits of, or a recommendation regarding the purchase or sale of, any security identified on, or linked through, this site.
