Regardless where one stands on this issue, supporting a moratorium in one watershed, while not supporting same in all watersheds is logically vacuous, and needs explained to We The People.
I continue to see that PA Governor-elect Tom Wolf supports a moratorium in the Delaware watershed until such time as O&G – on its dime and time – proves it safe there. But he opposed same protection in PA’s other watersheds. The Delaware has most of our wealthiest and most of our Dems…coincidentally, perhaps. Regardless, it can’t be unsafe (or safety can’t be unknown) where the rich drink, but same process safe everywhere else. Maybe I am missing something, but if so, Democratic Governor Tom Wolf ought to explain to the Democratic Committeeman why he opposes the Democratic fracking moratorium plank which won placement in our Democratic Platform, by a comfortable majority.
I called out the hypocrisy of our GOP legislature when they pulled this same dual logic:
I now call out the guy I campaigned and voted for.
Right now, I’d settle for consistent positions. This issue in PA has become like blockading Cuba while having China as MFN…in order to fight communism. Pick a side, any side, and apply your logic to all cases, or explain what led you to different outcomes.
Is the well being of the wealthiest and most Democratic PA citizens more important than those in Hop Bottom, PA, or are the former just beneficiaries of us protecting NYC water? Or is it something else? Again, consistency either way.
Here is a clear map of PA watersheds:
Why is OK to frack in some of Luzerne County, PA, but not only not OK in other parts of that same county, but specifically not OK because according to the 2011 draft regulations which led to it: “may have a substantial effect, either individually or cumulatively, on the surface water and groundwater resources of the basin”?