Saving Energy, the Economy and the Environment

Wednesday, August 20, 2008

The Aug. 15 front-page story "Traditional Energy's Modern Boom," about drilling for natural gas in the Marcellus Shale formation in Pennsylvania, perfectly captured the Klondike gold-rush mentality behind the drilling.

But it didn't completely convey the real cost of drilling. As the article noted, producing the gas requires "millions of gallons of chemically treated water, injected under tremendous pressure into the rock to shatter it and free the gas to migrate to the wellhead." This is a loss that can stress our already gravely threatened aquatic systems.

The article cited "environmental concerns about the disposal of the treated water and the potential for contamination of groundwater" and quoted an energy executive as dismissing the concerns. It did not mention that about 50 percent of the water used in drilling is laced with drilling chemicals and that whatever leaches out of the rock strata 5,000 feet down comes back to the surface, is collected in tanks and then is taken to the local municipal sewage treatment plant, where it is fed into the treatment plant's discharge. In other words, the solution to pollution is dilution.

According to the geologists, there is enough gas in the Marcellus formation to supply the entire country for just two years.

We need to break our addiction to fossil fuels and shift to clean energy technologies that offer the best possible long-term solution to global warming and energy challenges. We deserve better choices than the oil and gas industry is offering us today.

EDWARD PERRY

Boalsburg Pa.

The writer serves on the environmental committee of Pennsylvania's Trout Unlimited.

·

The Aug. 13 editorial "Round Two?" recommended against Congress and President Bush providing a second economic stimulus package unless the measure is "targeted, timely and temporary" and would put money into the hands of people who are likely to spend it quickly.

If some reasonable percentage of a future package were to be in the form of vouchers that would allow people to purchase anything that would conserve energy, the government would finally make a serious and powerful statement about conservation while simultaneously enabling taxpayers to save money on energy bills and providing a vital stimulus to many different sectors of the economy.

For example, taxpayers might be issued vouchers they could use to replace incandescent light bulbs with fluorescent lamps in individual homes and businesses, to tune up their automobile engines, or to purchase weather stripping or thermal blankets for water heaters.

Allowing people to invest some portion of a rebate in energy conservation over a short period of time would promote healthy awareness of conservation and incentives to invest in it. If the vouchers were redeemable for a wide variety of energy-saving products or services, that could spur healthy competition among many sectors of the economy.

JAY LABOV

Vienna

·

It's not only our leaders who must figure out how best to conserve energy and save our environment. It's up to us, too. I have been appalled at the long lines of cars I see in drive-through lanes at fast-food restaurants as well as at ice cream, donut and even coffee shops. Add up the amount of gasoline wasted and the amount of pollution swirling into the air from every car in every drive-thru every hour of every day all over our country.

There is an easy way to help conserve gas and make the environment a bit less polluted. Turn off the engine and walk in the business's front door. This wouldn't require much sacrifice. If we all did it, it would make a big difference.

CAROL NEWELL

Earlysville, Va.