Tag Archives: Ground Water Pollution

Mighty Mississippi

Shore Study 131017.001

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Theory of Corporate Influence and Exploitation: Part 1

1.0: (A) Wealthy corporate stockholders exert pressure onto a collection of business leaders to produce more profits with the least possible expense incurred to their corporate holdings and interests. (B) A wealthy individual decides they need to make more profits with the least possible expense incurred to their personal holdings or interests and decides to start a corporation to do so.

2.0: Entity (A) or (B) searches for possible resources to exploit, under the guise of a suitable and legally tax deductible designation (see Development, Exploration and Research).

3.0: Said business entity (1.0) pools massive amounts of money to fund an elaborate and dishonest information campaign. These campaigns begin with heavily weighted research designed to guide the science away from fact. Research is directed toward bankrupt state institutions with large grant checks stapled to the proposal. This corporately guided science results in journal entries and research papers that validate the intentions and goals of said resources where exploitation is possible (2.0). News releases are strategically submitted and some public interest is stirred.

4.0: The stirring of public interest (3.0) serves two primary goals. First (4.1), to spark the interest of other self-serving wealthy investors. Second (4.2), to find out what public dissent may exist so it can be destroyed with massive legal force. Once this is discovered an expensive and well-trained team of lawyers, marketing experts and anti-scientists are collected to compose a deceitful and cleaver set of messages to misinform the general, disengaged, public. Another group of well-trained lawyers, marketing experts and anti-scientists are devoted to pressuring lawmakers into passing laws and regulations that benefit said exploitable resource opportunity (2.0). Most of these laws and regulations are written by the corporate teams, not publicly elected lawmakers.

5.0: Land is leased or purchased. Leasing property from a private land owner (5.1) is good business move for said entity (A, B) as many private land owners will accept any dollar amount that is promised, no matter how intensive the lease or practice. Leasing property from a public entity (5.2), such as those on the city, township, county, state or federal levels are more promising yet. Regardless of intensity, the consistent flow of tax dollars will generally allow most resource exploitation to occur unrestricted (outside of obvious and obligatory public safeguards) on public land. The most intensive, destructive and disruptive resource exploitation is simply moved to remotely populated public lands or uninhabited wildlife areas.

see: Corporate Influence and Exploitation: Part 2

Theory of Corporate Influence and Exploitation: Part 1 – 131017.001

Tagged , , ,

Fracking is a shortsighted solution to our energy needs

October 3, 2012
Daniel Barron
Freeport, Illinois

Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, is a shortsighted approach to solving our economic and energy needs. The deeper implications of the fracking process and natural gas consumption boom establish a weak and misleading justification for unfounded benefits the industry, and their interest groups, would like us to believe.

1. As a source of jobs, the sustainability of fracking would seemingly rival that of asbestos installation. The boom in natural gas production is supplying jobs to workers displaced by the economic recession, but does that mean these are “good” sustainable jobs? What are the long-term health risks for this occupation? Perhaps one day these same energy companies will get rich again, starting businesses that accept public grants to clean up their own poison. Given this pollution is being injected directly into deep wells, this would be an impossible undertaking, though from a corporate perspective this would be a very lucrative and long-term (endless) profit source.

2. As a proposed clean energy source, the entire spectrum of natural gas bleeds inefficiencies. Exploration and collection processes utilize dangerous chemical mixtures requiring thousands of gallons of fresh water. The exposure and transfer of these chemicals to potable groundwater is almost certain. The entire process from gas well development to transportation incurs massive fuel consumption, and the end product, though cleaner than dirty coal, is still a fossil fuel and a net emitter of damaging greenhouse gases.

3. On claims of safety, the natural gas producers have been very public, but say very little. The human health implications masked in secrecy and defended as trade secrets are no different than the historic concealment of severe health implications from other industrial processes, DDTs, PCBs and sulfur dioxide, to name a few. This invasion on our human right to a healthy and safe environment has happened in the past and continues to occur under the profits-before-people paradigm. The ugly truth of this process is being suppressed, and industry lawyers have health care professionals and the public locked up in an expensive legal cage.

What are better alternatives to natural gas and the shortsighted methods in which it is derived? Alternative energy sources such as solar and wind are very promising in the growth of old and new industries alike. Of course, the best, and unpopular, route to sustainability is to use less energy and waste fewer resources (much less).

The American citizen must exercise vigilance and responsibility for the issues that impact our environment. Future generations will be critical of our decision to act, or to not act. Significant and important change is made in the individual and must come from the bottom up.

Daniel Barron is a Freeport, Ill., resident.

Rock River Times, From the Oct. 3-9, 2012, issue

Tagged , , , ,