Senate Bill 4 has officially made its way to Governor Brown’s desk and it will be signed within the next few days. "SB 4 passed the State Assembly on Wednesday, [September 11th, 2013], 47-14, [and it passed] the State Senate, 28-8." 2 ~ Kelly Hatrlog ~ Senator Pavley’s bill is the only Fracking bill that made it through the legislative process. However, SB 4 does nothing to prevent or discourage the seditious depredation of our precious land, water and health. Instead, the hesitation to ignite a blitzkrieg of oil and gas extraction in California has finally been lifted. The next California "gold rush" will finally begin. The bill calls for a study of these unconventional oil and gas drilling operations, determining if it can be done properly, exploring what necessary regulations will be made in order to appease our environmental concerns. Hydraulic Fracturing has already developed into one of the most polarizing debates this country has had in recent history. “If this bill passes as amended, it will allow the fracking industry to shoot holes in CEQA, potentially exempting fracking from our state’s most important environmental law as the industry rushes to build new wells before 2015” 1 ~ Zack Malitz ~
Senator Pavley’s bill does not instantiate any immediate provisions, nor does it call for a moratorium while this study takes place. This so called ‘Fracking Bill’ does not hold anyone accountable for the devastation that Hydraulic Fracturing will bring to the state when Governor Brown’s signature effectively ignites a California Fracking Boom. As Lauren Steiner points out, passing this bill "will prevent California from achieving the 20% reduction in CO2 called for in Pavley's signature bill, the Global Warming Solutions Act. Regulations can neither prevent nor mitigate the disastrous consequences inherent to fracking. We need to keep the carbon in the ground."
8 Our elected officials continue to neglect the demands of the majority of Californians who have remained unyielding and uncompromising with their demands for a moratorium or ban on hydraulic fracturing in California. "Already, nearly 200,000 petitions have been signed urging Governor Brown to ban fracking."
1
There has been a resounding plea from Environmental groups throughout the state, urging Fran Pavley to withdraw her bill on the basis of sheer inadequacy. Many groups who had originally defended SB 4 have withdrawn their support due to the continuous onslaught of defiling amendments that have since been added. The few who remain in support of SB 4 have stubbornly trudged on, willfully ignoring the pending ramifications of the defiled regulatory bill. SB 4 passed through the State Senate last week and Governor Brown is expected to sign the bill into law.
“This legislation does nothing to stop fracking or protect communities across the state from its harmful effects and last minute changes to the bill made it even worse." ~ Adam Scow, Food & Water Watch ~ “The threats to our state’s water, air and climate are real and pressing and we don’t have time for half measures like SB 4. We need courageous leadership—it’s time for Governor Brown to act now to ban fracking.” 3
For the environmental community, all of the bills that we started with were analogous to a perfect relationship. It was love at first sight. We had support of nearly every environmental group throughout the state. More than "70% of voters favor banning or heavily regulating chemical injections into the ground to tap oil and natural gas.”
11 The California Democratic Party's resolutions committee unanimously approved a fracking moratorium. The movement continued to grow with countless new findings, uncovering mountains of data and new facts. Despite our finest attempts, we have nonetheless been slighted, battered, and crushed. Our greatest efforts to put a moratorium on fracking have been disgracefully swept aside. We have been systematically stripped of our integrity and now our efforts are being mocked by the insubstantial 'fracking bill' they call SB 4.
This bill is authored by Senator Fran Pavley, "known as an environmental hero for authoring the Global Warming Solutions Act and the Clean Car Regulations. She accepts no money from Big Oil and is considered by many “the best friend environmentalists have in California.” 8
“We’re trying to put regulations in place that will address public concerns,” Pavley said in an April interview. “This bill does not place a moratorium on the process. It will go on. I consider this a compromise measure.” This so called compromise, however, is a win for the industry as it "will remove the regulatory uncertainty currently surrounding fracking. It will give the green light to Big Oil to frack the Monterey Shale, the largest oil play in the nation." 8 ~ Lauren Steiner ~
Many of us broke up with this heartbreaking legislation. We knew we deserved better. Some of us stumbled on, afraid to be alone, fabricating our feelings to have someone to cling to. Our elected officials delivered an onslaught of revisions and weakening amendments. They recklessly defiled our environmental concerns and explicitly ignored our environmental demands. Yet some of us still resisted the pain and trudged on in full support, denying the tragically painful reality, dismissing the agonizing truth that we have been cheated on. They refused to break ties with the enfeebled bill, even if they knew that they too deserved more. Forceful ignorance is a cowardly comforter for stubborn denial and a blatant avoidance of honest defeat.
The zealous advocates have now come face to face with the undeniable truth that: "platitudes aside, this bill does no favor to the environment or to public health." 8 Those who refuse to acknowledge the unsettling truth plunged ahead and cautiously stepped into the darkened room of what had become the final days of SB 4's amending process. A feeling of betrayal washed over them. They could see clearly, the foregone truth: oil has been in bed with SB 4 all along. "Although industry representatives testified against the bill, they tempered their criticisms. It’s an indication this bill is seen as preferable to those placing a moratorium on fracking." 8 Environmentalists have been violated and lied to; and we can no longer deny that, once again, we have been taken advantage of.
“This vote to allow fracking in California and exempt it from California’s benchmark environmental law shows that our Assembly has thoroughly failed at protecting Californians." ~ Zack Malitz, CREDO ~ “We’re depending on Governor Brown to step in to prevent the wholesale fracking of our state.” 3
It seems as though our environmental pleas have been ignored. Regardless of the petitioning efforts, phone calls, emails, and tweets; In spite of the protests, actions, rallies and press releases; Our capacity to articulate our unambiguous objections to fracking have been forsaken. “The passage of SB 4 demonstrates the continuing stranglehold that Big Oil has on the political process in Sacramento. Attempts to find common ground with an industry hell-bent on exploiting every last drop of oil regardless of the impact on California’s water, valuable farmland and the climate are inevitably bound to fail. The passage of this mangled bill only confirms the need for a moratorium on these dangerous extraction techniques.”
3 ~ Ross Hammond, Friends of the Earth ~
“There’s only one prudent next step to protect California’s water, air, and climate – for Governor Brown to place an immediate moratorium on fracking, acidizing, and other unconventional methods of exploiting fossil fuels." ~ Victoria Kaplan, MoveOn.org ~ “Legislators have failed to heed the wishes of a majority of Californians calling for a moratorium or a ban and MoveOn members will continue to organize across the state for an end to fracking.” 3
Please Continue To The Next Page. It Gets Much More Intense.
How the Frack did that happen?
"Comprising two-thirds of the United States’s total estimated shale oil reserves and covering 1,750 square miles from Southern to Central California, the Monterey Shale could turn California into the nation’s top oil-producing state and yield the kind of riches that far smaller shale oil deposits have showered on North Dakota and Texas." 12 ~ Norimitsu Onishi, NY Times ~ "For decades, oilmen have been unable to extricate the Monterey Shale’s crude because of its complex geological formation, which makes extraction quite expensive. But as the oil industry’s technological advances succeed in unlocking oil from increasingly difficult locations, there is heady talk that California could be in store for a new oil boom."
The U.S. Energy Information Administration has reported that the "sedimentary rock formation" running under California, also known as Monterey Shale, contains more than 15 billion barrels of proven oil reserves. This discovery is now sparking interest among the fracking industry to take advantage of the "gold rush" of potential profits that Monterey Shale fracking can deliver. According to FracFocus.org, there are 735 active fracking wells in California already.
Plain and simple, the catastrophic implications implicitly granted by a regulatory bill are being ignored by the proponents of SB 4. The imminent reality of global warming and mankind's exasperating contributions to greenhouse gas emissions reveal a sobering indication for our species: We need real, comprehensive changes to shift the societal prospective with respect to fossil fuel dependence. “The climate fight is no longer just about impacts in the future. It’s about physical and moral consequences, now. It’s a moral referendum on our willingness to do the simplest thing we must do to avert catastrophic climate disruption: Stop making it worse.” ~ KC Golden, Grist guest contributor ~ “Specifically and categorically, we must cease making large, long-term capital investments in new fossil fuel infrastructure… [Our opportunity] to avert catastrophic climate disruption will be “lost forever” without an immediate shift away from fossil fuel infrastructure investment… [We cannot] stave off disaster unless we stop feeding the fossil fuel beast with capital now.”
Hubris Has No Partisan Preference
“New language added to the bill specifies that "no additional review or mitigation shall be required" if the supervisor of the Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) "determines" that the proposed fracking activities have met the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This provision could be used by DOGGR to bypass CEQA's bedrock environmental review and mitigation requirements. This language could also prevent air and water boards, local land use jurisdictions and other agencies from carrying out their own CEQA reviews of fracking.” 4
If anyone remembers the Benicia Valero Crude-by-rail CEQA review, the CEQA representative who undertook the study undermined (and couldn't even provide a single example of) an "indirect effect" as defined under CEQA. He vocally concluded that refining Tar-Sands Crude and Bakken Shale Bitumen brought to the refinery would somehow "improve the air-quality of Benicia." So, we are at the mercy of corrupted (or poorly executed) CEQA reviews or a broken (or bought out) DOGGR, bypassing a CEQA review. Either way, the fate of our planet's environmental integrity will be determined within the confines of a broken environmental review system--or, as California politicians like to call it: an admirable regulatory procedure.
“The new language states that DOGGR “shall allow” fracking to take place until regulations are finalized in 2015 provided that certain conditions are met. This could be interpreted to require every fracked well to be approved between now and 2015, with environmental review conducted only after the fact, and could be used to block the Governor or DOGGR from issuing a moratorium on fracking prior to 2015. 4
SB4 is a not a bill set to establish the regulation of fracking in California, it is a bill set to regulate environmentalists and to silence the voices of fractivists throughout the state for the next year and a half, during which time, the industry will have a new set of guidelines to study and invest into alternative ways to define their activities, to undermine the law through semantics, and to sidestep regulation and review like they have with CEQA and DOGGR in California, and the EPA at the national level.
We have to stop fooling ourselves with blind hope and realize what is happening here. We are being jockeyed by our elected officials over and over and over again. When are we going to accept the cold fact that the only thing that environmental regulations actually regulate are environmentalists themselves? We are never going to ban or get a moratorium on fracking if we remain complacent within our legal system. It is a system that was built to keep our emotions constrained within a limited legal framework. We are going to lose the fight against fracking if the only tools in our arsenal are the ones in which the status quo allows.
And the supporters of SB4 gasp in defense : "The bill would impose a level of scrutiny found in no other state." 7 No, I don’t agree with that statement. Scrutiny involves “critical observation” and examination, both of which, when properly employed on the issue of fracking, would empower any individual to easily recognize that the data points this bill aims to identify are data points that already exist. This bill is nothing but a red herring for environmentalists. Lauren Steiner put's this in a more analogously accurate context: “Telling someone when you're going to frack, where you're going to frack and what chemicals you will use, is like a murderer telling you he's going to shoot you on your front porch at noon tomorrow using an AK-47.” She writes. “At the end of the day, you're still dead.” 8 ~ Lauren Steiner ~
So, even though a regulatory bill does close to nothing to ease our Fracking concerns, some groups within the environmental community remain convinced that SB 4 is some grand achievement. Well, according to the Sacramento Bee, supporting environmental groups "see the wisdom of the bill." I simply want to know if there are Environmentalists in favor of SB 4 who would agree with their supporting reasoning of this defense:
“But other environmentalists see the wisdom of Senate Bill 4. The bill would impose a level of scrutiny found in no other state. As the Legislature wraps up for 2013, approval of SB 4 should be a high priority.”
“California needs to continually embrace alternatives to fossil fuels, but it also should attempt to be less dependent on oil from the Middle East.”
“By shunning fracking, Californians would continue to offshore the damage done by oil drilling even as we remain a state heavily dependent on gasoline-powered cars.”
“The use of petroleum won’t end anytime soon. California policymakers can help provide a bridge by allowing safe extraction of old fuel, while continuing to encourage alternative fuel. Lawmakers should not let the opportunity pass.” 7
~ Editorial Board, Sacramento Bee ~
Now, if you truly believe that this bill contains scrutiny, then you are either severely misled with your current definition of scrutiny, or you simply don’t understand the environmental impacts that will result from fracking in California.
Smothered By The Hypocrisy Of 'Cleaner' Natural Gas
Even when we are only considering Fracking for Natural Gas (24% of California's Proven Shale composition; the other 76% is Oil), methane leakage is a catastrophic rebuttal to the fallacious argument that natural gas is a cleaner fuel. Yes, from a combustion prospective, natural gas is half as bad as coal. However, considering the full process of bringing that fuel to controlled combustion, fracking for natural gas is as bad as it gets for GHG emissions. More than a 1% leakage of methane at fracking wells nationwide automatically makes the fracking for natural gas a process that is on par with the emissions caused from coal burning. Estimates from the industry tend to hover around 3% nationwide. Industry payed reports used for Environmental Impact Reviews tend to be significantly lower. (I wonder why...) However, independent scientific studies tend to find methane leakage to be anywhere from 6% to 12% leakage, with some individual wells reaching astronomical proportions. “No regulations can prevent leaks. 6% of wells leak immediately; and 50% leak within 20 years. If the industry could make well casings leak proof, they'd do it. It's their own valuable product that is lost.” 8 ~ Lauren Steiner ~
Fracking for Natural Gas gets lumped into the categories of "clean energy", "energy independence" and "job creation." Such categorical representation is a deplorable misnomer straight from the pits of propaganda hell. President Obama, in his inaugural address, said: “We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations.” 5 ~ President Barack Obama ~ Then why, Mr. Obama, are we leaking away all of our 'clean energy' promises alongside the copious amounts of methane gas. Why are we telling the American people that we are preserving this beautiful world for our future generations while simultaneously fracking graves for them? You cannot be concerned about climate change without recognizing the toxic repercussions of your actions. In California, we are about to unleash yet another carbon bomb. This carbon recipe for destruction is only 1 part natural gas, and 3 parts dirty, sour, sludgy, crude oil. If they build a pipeline for it, I suggest we call it Keystone 2.0. This will keep California Oil's GHG emission potential in proper perspective--It's another Carbonized Weapon of Environmental Mass Destruction.
“Unlike other states where the frackers brag about extracting the allegedly "cleaner," "bridge fuel" natural gas, California will be fracked for oil. The Monterey Shale, running from Monterey to Los Angeles under the richest farmland in the country, contains 400 billion barrels of oil. And it's particularly carbon-intensive, sour, heavy crude.” 4 RL Miller, Daily Kos
As a matter of fact, Monterey Shale Crude Oil is perhaps “the dirtiest in the world, even above the filthy Canadian tar sands.” 4 RL Miller, Daily Kos We know how filthy the Canadian Tar Sands are: "According to the planet’s most important climatologist, James Hansen, burning even a substantial portion of that oil would mean it was “essentially game over” for the climate of this planet.” 10 ~ Bill McKibben ~ And something more sour, more carbon-intensive and more filthy--(if such a thing is imaginable)--is about to extracted right here in California.
“The Keystone Principle - ‘Specifically and categorically, we must cease making large, long-term capital investments in new fossil fuel infrastructure that “locks in” dangerous emission levels for many decades.’ Keystone is a carbon bomb.” Writes RL Miller. “The math puts the carbon impacts of California's oil on par with Keystone.” 11 Regarding the scientific hypocrisy of fracking in California, she explains that: “The ugly physics of handling this dirty oil are reminiscent of the Keystone pipeline's politics of exporting pollution. California's landmark global warming law, AB32, institutes a low carbon fuel standard. High-carbon oil won't be refined here. It will be shipped to less climate-conscious states or less finicky countries. And transporting dirty oil out of state will create yet more pollution.” 11
What did we do to raise our voices against the Keystone Pipeline? We stood up and we marched our way, 50,000 strong in DC, 5,000 strong in SF, and 1,000 strong in LA, to show that we were serious about climate change and that we weren't going to facilitate the ‘game over’ scenario for this planet and we are not going to allow that pipeline to be built. And if the president thinks that people will be mad and that we will just ‘get over it’ after a while if we do build it--he is mistaken.
A 'Cleaner' energy future that incorporates Fracking is a plan in need of some serious reconsideration for the President and the environmental groups supporting SB 4 as they too are indirectly approving the continuation of fracking in this state. And approving fracking regulations is approving fracking, and this is why we are split on the issue. Supporting SB 4 does nothing but encourage Jerry Brown to sign the bill, while the rest of us watch a fracking boom take place for the next 17 months. Nonetheless, we have construction underway already; and SB 4 is set to unleash a pandemic of oil extraction. For the supporters of SB 4, I only have three points for you :
66% -- The percentage of the United States’ proven shale reserves located in California.
76% -- California’s total proven shale that contains Crude Oil (24% Natural Gas).
50% -- The Percentage of the United States’ proven Oil located in California.
Look at that final number again and be honest; Did you really think SB 4 was going to make it through the voting process without being gutted to death? Do you honestly believe this bill will get us anywhere closer to getting a moratorium of ban on fracking? Do you really think regulations, under-staffed governmental review agencies, and our petitions and phone calls are going to keep oil frackers from the largest money grab of oil in this country?
Now, back to the point i was making earlier: When the Sacramento Bee says that “other environmentalists see the wisdom of Senate Bill 4,” is this still something that you agree with. (If you are not convinced, re-read the previous few paragraphs over and over until it registers. Here’s a diagram that might help :
KXL = ‘Game Over Climate’ = California Fracking
"I always give a one-word answer: Arithmetic." ~ Bill Clinton ~ "It passes the arithmetic test, and far more important, it passes the values test."
“Worse than having no regulations, weak regulations provide political cover to legislators who could otherwise be pressured to vote for a moratorium on the practice.” 8 ~ Lauren Steiner ~ So, If you truly think that SB 4 is going to be a great step in the right direction and this is what California really needs, and you are 100% genuine with your conviction, then I'm not quite sure why many of you call yourselves environmentalists. Look, If you truly believe that approval of SB 4 should be a high priority, and you are not just defending the bill for the sake of Pavley's tenure, then you need to spend some time on Google---Google is your friend---And search for information about the dangers of fracking and truly digest the nature of what you are advocating for here, regulated or not. If this bill passes and, after the fact, if we continue to spiral down this despicable hole of apathetic gutlessness, then seriously---shame on us.
If we are nature's greatest defense in the fight against fracking and the only methods of protest we employ are legally permissible, when will change take place? When will the effects become so undeniably obvious that we will finally start changing our ways? Regulating the way you do something won’t keep that thing from happening. You can limit yourself to peeing three times per day but you won’t be pissing out less liquid. Similarly, you can tell Oil companies that they must abide by certain regulations if they want to frack, but a regulatory bill will not prevent them from fracking, which will perpetuate the refining and burning of more fossil fuels.
But if all we are going to do as activists and environmentalists is sign petitions, send letters, and talk to office interns when we have a big problem with something that is murdering our planet, then what do we truly expect to come of that? If it is true that we are the only people dedicated to fighting for the survival of our planet and the future of our species, then we had better start getting much more creative with our protests, and we had better start getting really really angry about this shit. Otherwise, we have already failed our environmental purpose. If we remain complacent with our efforts; if we continue to utilize conventional means in our fight to maintain the integrity of this planet and the survival of humankind---we are screwed.
The Inconvenient Truth
It doesn't matter if we truly believe that nature has inalienable rights or not; in the eyes of our government, the only thing that matters is the legal framework allotted to environmental concerns. Nature, as defined by the structure of law, is nothing but property; nature has no rights; streams are sources of water; mountains are structures; forests are standing collections of potential limber. Nature is not mentioned in the constitution with regards to prosperity or the rights to life. The battles we have won are battles won through ulterior arguments. Streams provide fresh water in a nation where clean water is growing scarce. Forests provide oxygen in a nation that can scientifically recognize that oxygen is essential to human life. We don't win our battles on behalf of nature by utilizing arguments in defense of nature; we win them on the basis of resource scarcity, land rights, and biodiversity.
The truth is, we've never had an environmental movement in this country; not one. Think about that for a moment: we have never truly come together on an environmental issue with enough courage and resilience to look into the eyes of these arrogant oppressors; to stand up for mother nature in solidarity; to look at these profiteering fools and tell them: no. We have never had the audacity to disobediently deprive these egotistic monarchs of their overbearing pride as they carelessly desecrate our planet. We waste our time on regulatory agencies; we lobby for regulatory enforcement; and we spend millions of dollars in donations and thousands of hours of our precious time in order to draft new regulations. But why are we satisfied with trying to regulate things like fracking? Why are we okay with compromises that will do nothing more than exasperate the climate crisis? Do any of us realize what a regulation actually does?
Regulate (verb) :
(1) to control or direct according to rule, principle or law
(2) to adjust to a specification or requirement
(3) to adjust for accurate and proper functioning
(3) to put or maintain in order 6
We regulate alcohol to allow it to be consumed by people 21 years or older, to be consumed as long as you you don't drive under the influence. We regulate tobacco to allow it to be consumed with certain guidelines and above the age of 18. We regulate our blood sugar, our eating habits, profanity on television, age restrictions on video games, pornography on the internet, the amount of bags you can bring on a plane as carry-on, and we even regulate the amount of vegetables and fruits that must now be served in elementary school lunches.
We do not ban all alcohol, because, regardless of the dangers, there are ways to consume it that aren't destructive. We do not ban tobacco, because, regardless of the health risks, there is tobacco that doesn't necessitate added tar and chemical additives (ex: Organic American Spirit, freshly grown, etc). We do not ban salt or sugar regardless of it's effects on blood sugar levels. We don't ban profanity, nor violent video games, nor pornography. We do not place moratoriums on carry-on baggage or unhealthy cafeteria foods. In general, we do not ban or place moratoriums on things that do not merit such legislation. And we do not regulate things that we intend to ban or place a moratorium on. We regulate these things to make the usage or process less susceptible to social discontent.
So, the point is not to say that we should ban these aforementioned things or place moratoriums on them. The point is simple: If the aim is to regulate Fracking in California through a study as determined by SB4, we are taking for granted that by regulating fracking, we are in essence accepting that fracking is acceptable. And in 2015, whatever SB4 defines as "properly regulated fracking" will be the new industry standard; the next set of guidelines for fracking to follow. They will adhere to these new definitions so that they may continue to extract, refine, and ultimately burn the oil and gas they seek.
Fracking regulations will not do anything to prevent our lands from being fracked. This 'regulation bill' will add more rules to an unacceptable process. We don't need new guidelines for how they should frack our land. Frankly, a regulation bill will only make our environmental argument weaker. It will make the legal challenges that we present nearly impossible as long as the new rules are followed, regardless of the loopholes and semantics that these corporations will use in order to remain resistant to legal dispute. The only thing SB 4 will ultimately regulate will be our ability to effectively respond to the environmental concerns that will inevitably persist.
Regulating a particular process automatically warrants that process to continue. It acknowledges the truth that we have always known but have refused to accept. We have been willfully blinded by hope; hope that one day others will eventually succeed in creating the changes that we have desired for so long. We are willfully blinded by trust; trust in the tools that have allowed us to express our yearning for environmental justice. But the tools we have been given are nothing more than illusory powers and freedoms. They allow us to speak while disallowing tangible success. Furthermore, the governmental powers that have given us these tools are the very same powers that have blatantly disregarded our collective demand for a fracking moratorium.
“Our experience of the governments of the world, our knowledge of the weapons at their disposal, and our awareness of our own limitations justify pessimism. But some mysterious factor deep in the human psyche has produced a countervailing conviction that educating, organizing, uniting, and acting will make a difference. ” ― David T. Dellinger
When we reflect on our struggle as a whole, we rightfully see that we are fighting for a common cause. We have convinced ourselves that the moral high ground of what we stand for will eventually take precedence in the eyes of the status quo. We are also convinced that we can influence change through petitioning, making phone calls, commenting at hearings, sending letters to the editor, talking to office staff, and passing regulations. The truth is, this isn't change, nor will it ever be a way to effectively bring about change. Held exclusively, these credulous convictions are inadequate; they substantiate nothing. Sentiment is merely the beginning. The conventional powers that we have been given allow us to educate, empower and organize. A real paradigm shift calls for real action.
“Anything else you’re interested in is not going to happen if you can’t breathe the air and drink the water. Don’t sit this one out. Do something.” Carl Sagan
Our elected officials must start paying attention to the way we are treating this planet. They won’t be able to reflect on this, however, if they aren't able to pull their heads out of their asses. As activists then, we must take on this arduous task for them, and we must pull their heads out of their asses wither they want to or not. There is no compromise when it comes to a sustainable environment. The only compromise here is a compromise of when. And soon, waiting for change will be unacceptable. There is no more deliberation. The fractivism bubble is already expanding at exponential rates. There is only a matter of time before environmental activists will reach their boiling point of frustration. The fractivism bubble is reaching it's peak; and if I haven't made it obvious already, our emotions are beginning to simmer.
“The likelihood that your acts of resistance cannot stop the injustice does not exempt you from acting in what you sincerely and reflectively hold to be the best interests of your community.” ― Susan Sontag
Citations
[1] http://ecowatch.com/... | Pro-Fracking Amendments Undermine CA’s Existing Environmental Law | EcoWatch.org, September 9, 2013 | Zack Malitz, campaign manager for CREDO
[2] http://santamonica.patch.com/... | California Anti-Fracking Coalition Decries Passage of Fracking Regulation Bill | Culver City Patch, September 12, 2013 at 09:29 AM | Kelly Hatrlog, PATCH Contributor
[3] http://ecowatch.com/...
Flawed Fracking Bill Passes California Assembly | EcoWatch.org, September 11, 2013 |
Anna Ghosh, Western Region Communications Director for Food & Water Watch | Adam Scow, California Campaigns Director at Food & Water Watch | Zack Malitz, campaign manager for CREDO | Victoria Kaplan, campaign director at MoveOn.org | Ross Hammond, senior campaigner with Friends of the Earth |
[4] http://www.dailykos.com/...
Fracking in California must not be regulated | By RL Miller, For Climate Hawks, Daily Kos Blog | THU JUL 11, 2013 AT 11:46 AM PDT
[5] http://www.whitehouse.gov/... | President Barack Obama, 2013 Inaugural Address, Jan 21, 2013
[6] http://www.thefreedictionary.com/...
[7] http://www.sacbee.com/...
Editorial: Legislature should approve fracking regulation | Editorial Board, Sacramento Bee | Published: Sunday, Sep. 8, 2013 - 12:00 am
[8] http://www.commondreams.org/... |California's Fracking Regulatory Bill: Less Than Zero | by Lauren Steiner, Common Dreams | Wednesday, August 7, 2013
[9] http://en.wikipedia.org/... |Wikipedia.org , Hotel of California
[10] http://www.tomdispatch.com/... | Bill McKibben, The Great American Carbon Bomb | 9:20am, July 14, 2011
[11] http://articles.latimes.com/... | Californians uneasy about fracking's safety, lack of oversight | By Evan Halper, Los Angeles Times June 07, 2013
[12] http://www.nytimes.com/... | Vast Oil Reserve May Now Be Within Reach, and Battle Heats Up | By NORIMITSU ONISHI | Published: February 3, 2013