Thinking the unthinkable

Once before on this editorial page we discussed the idea of the Overton window, a framework that helps activists who want to influence policy to map out their game plan. It consists of a continuum of public evaluations of any given policy position ranging from “unthinkable” at one end to “popular” at the other. In between come the gradations “radical,” “acceptable” and “sensible.” The name of the game for activists is to move the position they favor toward the “popular” end—or the position they oppose to “unthinkable.”

We think this framework is useful in understanding what has been happening with regard to natural gas drilling in the Marcellus Shale area. When the idea of the use of fracking to exploit the Marcellus Shale first entered into public discourse in our area about 18 months ago, the thought that it should be halted, or slowed, or limited in any way was for the most part way out on the “unthinkable” end of the spectrum. The background was one of soaring gasoline prices, economic hardship and a lot of campaign-related drum-beating identifying natural gas as a domestic energy source that could free us from a dependence on foreign oil.

Yes, there were notes of caution sounded—mostly warnings to landowners not to let themselves get rooked when signing leases. The initial seminars given by the local land-grant colleges, Cornell and Penn State, tended to ignore environmental impact—at one early meeting it took a question from one of our reporters to even bring it into the discussion. The Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC), which admittedly has a lot of political constituencies to satisfy, was initially slow to respond to our queries about what they intended to do about the issue or to take any stand on protecting the watershed. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation issued some rather blasé statements to the effect that they were sure those nice fellows at the gas drilling companies wouldn’t do anything bad.

Even at the local grassroots level, feelings were nowhere near as unanimous as they had been with regard to New York Regional Interconnect’s power line, against which the whole community stood united. In this case, the prospect of instant wealth for some landholders created a strong pro-drilling constituency, while those not directly affected were slow to perceive that drilling on their neighbors’ lands might, after all, have a profound effect on them.

But over time, there has been a shift. In just two recent examples, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has said it should conduct a review of its policy on the risk that hydraulic fracturing poses to drinking water, and the DRBC has told drilling companies they may not commence drilling without first applying for and obtaining DRBC approval, regardless of the amount of water withdrawn. And while Penn State, in a recent seminar, was still inclined to minimize the environmental dangers, their presentation did include advice about water testing and even some testing kits that could be analyzed at reduced cost. (See page 4.)

There are probably a number of factors that have gone into this shift in the public discussion. The change in administrations in Washington has no doubt had an effect. The Bush administration was aggressively anti-environmental, from an executive order that gutted the Endangered Species Act to a national parks policy that dictated that mid-level managers and above must be screened and approved by industry-friendly Bush political appointees.

The Obama administration is seen as much more environmentally friendly, reversing, for instance, Bush’s damaging Endangered Species order. And while this may have set the atmosphere for the different language we are hearing out of agencies like the EPA, it is far from the whole story.

We believe that local grassroots individuals and groups have created this shift by simply continuing to talk about the issues surrounding fracking and clean water, keeping information and argument in the realm of public discourse. These groups include not only environmentalists but municipalities and landowners’ groups that are insisting on standards such as strict environmental controls for leases and bonding for roads. And the more the public hears, the more the idea of restraining fracking moves from “unthinkable” and “radical” toward “acceptable” and even “sensible.”

But gasoline prices are rising again, putting concern over energy costs on the front burner, and Obama is a big fan of natural gas as an alternative to foreign oil. The pressure must be maintained to keep the importance of water as a resource even more precious than natural gas front and center. And maybe, as the preservation of the watershed, even if it means limiting drilling, moves to the “popular” end of the Overton window, the agencies and politicians who have hesitated to take strong positions on protecting the environment will be further emboldened to take a stand—while others who have been fighting for a while now will have a better chance of winning.

Also in this issue:

• Holy water

Dr. Punnybone

Chairman Meow