Skip to content

Environmentalists Discredited

January 13, 2015

Should environmental organizations be trusted?

Two recent events confirm the worst about these organizations.

Not satisfied with their past discredited efforts against fossil fuels, Greenpeace vandalized the historic Nazca site in Peru, where they caused irreparable damage. Their actions prove they will go to any extreme to promote their “cause”.

At Nazca, Greenpeace hurt the people of Peru.

Picture of Greenpeace defiling NAZCA ruins in Peru.

Picture of Greenpeace defiling NAZCA ruins in Peru.

The Sierra Club has produced a video against fracking that is pure propaganda, virtually devoid of facts … bordering on lies. The video would hurt Americans if it were accepted at face value.

The truth is that fracking has resulted in huge benefits for Americans, without damaging the environment … and without contaminating water supplies. See Fracking Benefits America.

So how does the Sierra Club distort and mislead with its video, Fracking 101?

It begins with the distorted claim that fossil fuels are diminishing globally. In fact, fossil fuel reserves are increasing. As oil and natural gas are used, new reserves are discovered.

Natural gas reserves had declined in the lower 48 states before the advent of fracking, but Alaskan reserves were still plentiful. Reserves in Russia and the Mideast are still plentiful. Reserves in Canada are increasing. Reserves in Argentina are increasing.

The industry turned to fracking in the United Sates because there were huge reserves that could not be accessed using traditional methods.

The video claims that Fracking is a more dangerous extraction method, which distorts the truth. The most dangerous, but still safe method of extraction is probably deep water drilling, a mile below the ocean’s surface.

Fracking is no more dangerous or expensive than drilling for oil.

The Sierra Club video then claims that dangerous chemicals are used that endanger the water supply.

While chemicals are used, they do not endanger the water supply. Some of the chemicals are very common household names, such as Muriatic Acid used in swimming pools. A few may be more dangerous, but still can’t endanger water supplies. The chemicals used in fracking are now, with a few exceptions, known to everyone.

The claim that fracking fluid extracted from wells is dumped into rivers is a gross exaggeration. Only one instance of this is known to have occurred, and the individual responsible has been convicted of the act.

Used fracking fluids are trucked to where they can be safely disposed, or, more recently, they are treated on site. See Fracking Gets Better.

Insinuating that fracking fluids are routinely dumped into rivers is a distortion, befitting of the worst con man.

The worst distortion in the video depicts fracking fluid and natural radiation seeping into aquifers. Some might describe this as a lie, especially as the video depicts the fracking fluid flowing downward into aquifers. In reality, the aquifers are thousands of feet above the shale.

Fracking takes place thousands of feet below aquifers, with thick layers of rock separating the fracking fluid from aquifers. There have been no proven examples of fracking fluid migrating from the shale to aquifers.

In fact, it is virtually impossible.

The video also says that flaring methane in North Dakota can be seen from space, but this is not surprising as methane has frequently been flared around the world. For example, flares in Saudi Arabia can be seen from space. But attempts are now being made to capture and use the methane gas rather than flaring it.

The claim that air and water pollution from fracking can lead to cancer and other diseases is an unfounded claim … a pure distortion, verging on being a lie.

Methane is the primary gas resulting from fracking and the chemicals from the shale can’t get into the water supply. Methane is used in homes for cooking and heating, and, except for being explosive, is considered safe. The leftover chemicals are locked underground. There is no polluting of aquifers from fracking.

The Sierra Club has declared war on natural gas, i.e., methane, because it supposedly has a greater effect on global warming than CO2.

These events demonstrate that environmental organizations will go to any length, including damaging national historic sites, such as the Nacza site in Peru, and make any distortion, such as the Fracking 101 video, to further their war on natural gas and other fossil fuels.

Should they be trusted? You decide.

* * * * * *

It’s easy to subscribe to articles by Donn Dears.

Go to the photo on the right side of the article where it says email subscription. Click and enter your email address. You can unsubscribe at any time.

If you know people who would be interested in these articles please send them a link to the article and suggest they also subscribe.

© Power For USA, 2010 – 2015. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author, Donn Dears LLC, is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Power For USA with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

6 Comments leave one →
  1. January 13, 2015 11:14 am

    Desecrating ancient ruins is criminal! Was GreenPeace charged for these criminal actions?

    Apparently GreenPeace & the Sierra Club want us all to be living in caves. Wonder how much gasoline & electricity each of these elitists use each day?!?

    Ornithologist, Jon Boone hit the nail on the head regarding the Sierra Club’s hypocrisy in his good piece: “The Sierra Club: How support for Industrial Wind technology subverts its history, betrays its mission, & erodes commitment to the Scientific Method”:

    Part 1:

    Part 2:

    Part 3:

  2. Daniel permalink
    January 13, 2015 2:50 pm

    It is not just fossil fuels. The Sierra Club has opposed all large scale hydropower projects for over a 100 years despite the fact they are “renewable.”

    They also blocked nuclear reactors that run on different fuel cycles that can effectively eliminate nuclear waste and provide all the planets energy needs for billions of years.

    The claim was that there was a nuclear weapons proliferation threat. When the head scientists of the nuclear weapons division of the DOE pointed out that nuclear weapons made in such a manner wouldn’t explode, the response was to blacklist them and in a couple cases set the scientists on fake criminal charges.

    They are against the industrial revolution in general.

    • January 13, 2015 4:19 pm

      Yes. They are against using any energy except alternatives such as wind and solar.

  3. Steve Andelman permalink
    January 13, 2015 3:17 pm

    Was the Picture of Greenpeace defiling NAZCA ruins in edited phot or did Greenpeace indelibly etch it into the soil?

    • January 13, 2015 4:26 pm

      Good question. There’s no question that they caused irreparable harm to NAZCA.
      Here’s quote from January 10, 2015, Latin American Herald Tribune to substantiate the event:
      “Peru’s Culture Minister, Diana Alvarez-Calderon, added that the country would pursue legal action against Greenpeace in international courts if it could not get the Greenpeace four to stand trial in Peru itself.”
      Whether the photo has been touched up, I don’t know, but it appears it is genuine.
      Here’s from CNN: “The activists placed yellow letters next to a famous hummingbird design, and now Peruvian authorities are threatening to sue Greenpeace and criminally charge the activists with attacking archaeological monuments.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s