Bloomberg speaks out on Cuomo's position on hydrofracking
Chenault, Bloomberg, Quinn, Walsh. Dana Rubinstein
2:13 pm Oct. 27, 201112
Mayor Michael Bloomberg strongly defended Governor Andrew Cuomo's current position on hydrofracking.
"I think the governor, our governor, has it just right," said the mayor, during a press conference at Rothman's, a men's clothing store on Union Square. "Governor Cuomo said he didn't want fracking in the watershed. I agree with that. But you shouldn’t walk away from an energy source that we need."
The mayor was at a men's clothing store in Union Square to annouce an initiative called Building Blocks for Neighborhood Retail, designed to improve the health of the city's struggling retail corridors, which comprise a core component of the city's economy. (The retail industry employes more than 300,000 people in New York.)
The intitiative includes the creation of a centralized website that will offer merchants information on storefront vacancies and demographic data; a Neighborhood Pop-Up Store Competition designed to fill vacant storefronts and foment new retail ideas; and leadership training for active local merchants.
Bloomberg was joined at the press conference by his frequent public companion, City Council Speaker Christine Quinn, as well as city Small Business Services commissioner Robert Walsh and American Express C.E.O. Ken Chenault, who was simultanetously launching American Express’s second “Small Business Saturday.”
The mayor's gesture of support for Cuomo came in response to a question asking Bloomberg about plans for a new natural-gas pipeline that will run from Staten Island to New Jersey and then terminate in the West Village.
The New York Times this morning reported on the pipeline plans, which have drawn opposition from West Village residents and Jersey City mayor Jerramiah Healy. Because the pipeline would carry some natural gas derived using the controversial hydrofracking extraction method, it has also drawn opposition from fracking opponents like actor Mark Ruffalo.
The mayor was having none of that.
"This is a gas line that we desperately need," he said. "Only about 20 percent of the gas, incidentally, that comes through that line will go to New York City. It goes north, south, east, west, all around. It’s a regional thing. And the controversy is that there will be some gas that’s taken out of the grounds through a fracking process."
The mayor then gave a small speech about the practice formally known as hydraulic fracturing, and its place in the context of energy and the environment.
"My understanding is there’s virtually no natural gas anymore, almost none, that’s not done with fracking," he said. "If you think about it, what shale is, that holds gas, is just sort of like petrified mud. And it holds all the gas. And so you want to get the gas out of it. And the way they do it is they drill in and then they burst it open a little bit with high pressure water and sand that holds it open and it’s just so much more efficient.
"Almost all gas throughout the country comes from that. And there’s no free lunch. You're gonna have choices. You want more nuclear? Do you want more coal? Do you want more natural gas?"
"Coal," continued the mayor, "kills 13,000 people a year in the United States with the pollutants that it puts in the air. About 800 of those are in the New York region. Stopping coal-fired plants is one of the highest priorities we have. In fact, my foundation, as you remember, made a big gift to the Sierra Club that’s trying to do just that. But we have to have an alternative source. And the alternative source that’s the most practical at the moment is not solar, wind, someday maybe, but for the moment it is natural gas."
Hydrofracking has become a hot-button issue in New York State, with energy interests battling environmentalists for state approval to drill in the Marcellus Shale.
Yesterday, state Department of Environmental Conservation commissioner Joe Martens said it was taking longer than expected to produce oversight and enforcement guidelines for the hydrofracking process, and that issuance of drilling permits would, therefore, take longer than anticipated.
Cuomo supports ending a moratorium on hydrofracking on private land in New York State, but has said the practice should be banned within watersheds serving New York City, Syracuse, and other municipalities.
Thank you for this coverage, Dana. It's good to finally hear Bloomberg come right out with his divisive policies about fracking, which leave 80% of the residents of New York State unprotected from the likelihood their water will be poisoned by fracking. Also good to see where Christine Quinn stands, which is right next to the mayor, going right along with his policies. Too bad for anyone who lives in upstate New York or Pennsylvania, and too bad for the residents of her district in the West Village who might be blown up by this pipeline; progress is progress and they'll just have to deal with it, she seems to think.
No one should be fooled by any supposed anti-fracking noises either of these two make. They plan to convert the entire city to gas, and as the mayor acknowledges, almost all gas now is fracked. This is a problem because of the way gas carries radon through the pipelines and into people's stoves, where it can be inhaled, causing lung cancer. For New York City residents, using fracked gas from the Marcellus would put them more at risk from radon exposure. Since the fracked gas coming from nearby shale plays is more radioactive than other areas, and is delivered faster, it lessens the opportunity for radon to decay along the way. That's bad news for anyone, but even worse for the majority of city residents, who tend to have small and poorly-ventilated kitchens, often without a window.
No one wants any deaths from air pollution, however, if one takes the mayor's logic down the line, his intention to reduce pollution from coal could end up causing lung cancer in thousands of residents instead. And that's without taking into account the way our regional air quality will suffer, as drilling in Pennsylvania and upstate is built out. All that methane and those toxins will worsen air pollution and climate change for the city. Better, greener solutions exist and could be built out in the same time frame as the PlaNYC 2030 intends to build out massive gas infrastructure instead.
As the mayor notes, only 20% of this pipeline is contracted for by Con Ed. So what's the intention for the other 80%? Since the Spectra pipeline is routed through the port area of Bayonne, and since Statoil is a stakeholder, if this pipeline comes to be built, an LNG export terminal in our harbor is almost inevitable. Liberty Gas has already indicated their desire to build an LNG terminal in NJ. Chesapeake Energy, the main supplier of gas for this pipeline, has indicated their intention to export the gas to higher-paying foreign markets. It is obvious the intention for the majority of this pipe's capacity is for export. They can't turn a profit without exporting, and once they do, the domestic price of gas is sure to rise as well.
Liquified natural gas tankers in our harbor would off-gas 24/7, releasing methane directly into our atmosphere. The outcome of converting the city to gas will end up being greater air pollution and a health crisis caused by radon exposure.
No new infrastructure should be built and no gas sourced from the Marcellus should be allowed in NYC until these issues can be addressed. Borough President Scott Stringer has pledged his opposition to this pipeline if it carries fracked gas, until a cumulative impact study can be done. This is a reasonable approach.
Rather than build it and see how it impacts human health later, just take a breath, figure out whether this is such a good idea first. In the meantime, develop renewable energy as the Stanford University study says can be done--by 2030--in the same time frame we're aiming to operate on gas, we COULD operate on wind, water, solar. That's no pipe dream, but the idea that continuing to depend on dirty fossil fuels will make our air cleaner, IS.
I am very glad to know that your site is upgrading from the simplest to faster and synchronized form. I am quite familiar of a lot of sites since I work as a freelance writer and one of the sites that palm oil expellerI find evolve is your site respectively.
Mayor Bloomberg is leaving out one GIGANTIC fact in his statement about hydaulic fracturing. In addition to busting open the rock with high pressure water and sand, the gas companies also inject HUNDREDS OF TOXIC CHEMICALS into the ground. In 2005, the Bush/Cheney administration exempted the process of fracking from the Safe Drinking Water Act, which means the energy companies do not have to disclose the chemicals they use.
Fracking has caused devastating water contamination across the US. There is also the issue of the toxic wastewater and how it will be disposed of. NYC's old water supply tunnels also may not be able to handle the extremely high pressure used in the fracking process. It is extremely disappointing to hear Mayor Bloomberg publically discuss such a serious issue of fracking without all of the facts.
We cannot exist without water - once it is contaminated, there is no going back. There have been no long term public health studies on the effects of fracking. We cannot rush ahead and put our precious drinking water and health at risk for corporate profits. The film "Gasland" should be required viewing for all Americans to see what gas drilling and fracking can do to our water supply. Contamination from fracking is a disaster that can be prevented. There are alternatives to gas, but there are no alternatives to water.
Mayor Bloomberg is leaving out one GIGANTIC fact in his statement about hydaulic fracturing. In addition to busting open the rock with high pressure water and sand, the gas companies also inject HUNDREDS OF TOXIC CHEMICALS into the ground. In 2005, the Bush/Cheney administration exempted the process of fracking from the Safe Drinking Water Act, which means the energy companies do not have to disclose the chemicals they use.
Fracking has caused devastating water contamination across the US. There is also the issue of the toxic wastewater and how it will be disposed of. NYC's old water supply tunnels also may not be able to handle the extremely high pressure used in the fracking process. It is extremely disappointing to hear Mayor Bloomberg publically discuss such a serious issue of fracking without all of the facts.
We cannot exist without water - once it is contaminated, there is no going back. There have been no long term public health studies on the effects of fracking. We cannot rush ahead and put our precious drinking water and health at risk for corporate profits. The film "Gasland" should be required viewing for all Americans to see what gas drilling and fracking can do to our water supply. Contamination from fracking is a disaster that can be prevented. There are alternatives to gas, but there are no alternatives to water.
Opposition to hydro-fracking is practically a religious endeavor, like people who only use Apple computers and not PC's. Or the kooks who thought water fluoridation was a communist conspiracy.
There's NOTHING to support their arguments. The UK did an extensive survey of hydro-fracking for the UK and found ALL of the assertions of doom bandied about by the ant-hydro fracking zealots to be without merit.
From the chair of the UK committee that wrote the report:
"There has been a lot of hot air recently about the dangers of shale gas drilling, but our inquiry found no evidence to support the main concern – that UK water supplies would be put at risk.
There appears to be nothing inherently dangerous about the process of 'fracking' ...
http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-sele...
This whole effort seems to be directed by certain monied elements of the Democrat left who are heavily invested in "Green" technology and who stand to lose hundreds of millions of dollars if the technology is delayed.
You're being used, folks.
Mayor Bloomberg and anyone who doubts that gas drilling and fracking is dangerous should visit Dimock, PA and see the evidence of water contamination. Senator Ball (NY-R) took the time to go there and see the damage for himself. I urge everyone to go to Senator Ball's website and read his comments and watch the video of his interview with Capital Tonight. Senator Ball cared enough to go and see how people have suffered from this risky and dangerous practice. We need more politicians like him who take the time to care!
I believe that Mayor Bloomberg was correct in stating that virtually all of the United States' natural gas supply is now accessed by means of fracturing. The same would be true of our domestic oil supply. And I am certain that the great majority of the imports of petroleum come from wells that have been fractured. Those who are against fracturing for the reasons they state so many times should, by all logic if they think the practice is so harmful, refrain from the use of any gas or oil.
Give me a break. Fracking is a part of the archaic approach to an inefficient standard and its not worth it at all. The worst part is the lack of accountability after the fact. The risks are way to high. Mayor Bloomberg should step out of office already and let a new and more interested administration do the work that we need to see happen here relative to this issue (of hydro-fracking) and other environmental problems if he cant do the job. NYC residents have seen enough bull. Granted the guy is good but the environment and personal well being is not his forte and should be left to the care of the pro's.. and if he is not willing to listen to the cold hard facts then he should be ashamed of himself to boot. Leadership requires serious responsibility and this idea that "we desperately need this pipe" is fubar and mindless. People should get more active and fast or nothing good will happen despite the fact that we all, including Bloomberg, know better.
Hey GOPNYC -
I read that England stopped hydrofracking because they recorded a dangerous increase in earthquakes.
While I get that taking a shot at other candidates is part of the debate process, I wish more time was spent on the meat of the questions. The format didn't allow the moderator to press for an answer specific to the question, which was unfortunate because they all strayed off the mark so much. I was particularly disappointed in Cuomo's answer to the small business owner. None of the candidates truly addressed the question, but I expected more from Cuomo than a generalized answer that would work for big business as well. At least Barron mentioned procurement contracts being inequitably distributed, but the bottom line is, how are we going to help small businesses grow so they can hire more employees during a time when credit is hard to get for new small businesses? We can get people off the unemployment rolls if they can get the support they need to hang a shingle in whatever they do best - but which candidate is going to increase funding for training programs in running a small business? or guarantee cashloans? or expand available start-up grants? There's way too much talk about keeping big business in the state, and not enough about supporting the small biz owners who have roots here already, and are much less likely to pick up and leave the state after getting state funding than some bigger companies I could name.