Scattered clouds
Scattered clouds
17.6 °F
December 11, 2016
River Reporter Facebook pageTRR TwitterRSS Search

For natural gas drilling, most NYS residents say risk outweighs revenue

June 7, 2012

The below is a press release from Cornell University

ITHACA, N.Y. — More than half of New York state residents believe that the environmental risks of natural gas drilling outweigh the revenues produced by such activity, according to the latest Empire State Poll conducted by Cornell’s Survey Research Institute.
Fully 52 percent of New Yorkers polled stated that the risks outweigh revenues for gas drilling, compared to 27 percent who believe the revenues outweigh the risks and 21 percent who did not know enough about the issue to form an opinion. Cornell University’s Survey Research Institute polled New Yorkers about this issue in 2010 and 2011. During both polls, the share of New York residents who felt the environmental risks outweighed the revenue benefits was about twice that of residents who felt gas-drilling revenues outweighed the risks.

The poll also found that, statewide, an equal share (52 percent) of men and women believe that risks of gas drilling outweigh the monetary returns. Opinions on this issue diverged by region, race and household income: A greater share of downstate residents (54 percent) believe that risks outweigh revenues than their Upstate (50 percent) counterparts. Similarly, 59 percent of non-white residents versus 50 percent of white residents say risks outweigh revenues.

Age and one's position on the political scale also had a bearing: Younger and more liberal New Yorkers tend to believe that the risks outweigh revenues. For example, 66 percent of self-described liberals say risks outweigh revenues, compared to 47 percent of moderates and 41 percent of conservatives.
When decisions have to be made about gas drilling regulations, a clear majority (61 percent) agreed that local government should have control. This was consistent across upstate and downstate respondents.

For the information about the Survey Research Institute and for full results of this poll, visit:

risks outweigh money?

This issue shows vividly the somewhat muddled thinking of the majority of people when it comes to this issue. The plain but predictable facts of this are as they have always been. The risks are OURS, the monies are THEIRS. Aubrey Mc Clendon does not have to even consider whether the poisons his companies pump into the ground will have health effects on his or anyone else's family. HE can easily afford to have an unlimited amount of water purification systems installed in his multiple homes, and have a full-time staff of butlers tend to them. The grouchy old Republican guy up the block is not going to get A NICKEL of the gas profits, but he WANTS people to die from cancer, because that is how people who champion outrages like this are, so he will put his "friend of natural gas" sign on his lawn to show his miserable independence and total disregard for other human beings. He will whine with the best of them when his wife of 45 years dies of cancer from ingesting benzene and his drinking water catches fire, but that is later, and he will be shocked that the government and Big Oil lied to him. The companies doing it are the same way, there are ways of doing this WITHOUT poisons, but they will not consider a loss of ANY profit EVER, Like with the gulf oil spill, for an inconsequential expense it could have been avoided, but the "cost'cutting" showed the executives involved put profit above anything, including human life and the earth itself, thus ensuring them a seat at the Corporate Boardroom Table.
The anti-gas "forces" are well-meaning but innefectual dreamers, who feel important and virtuous fighting obvious evil. At best they will slow down the process, but they will not be able to stop it. It will simply wait until they go away, then do what it wants.
In the long run, as has ALWAYS been the case, especially here in New York, the Oil Companies will get and do whatever they want, by bribing our ever compliant Albany government, and relentless repitition of the "Energy Independence and gas is our friend" advertisements starring the striding confident blond lady in black, on television.

The anti-gas "forces"?

Greg Wood wrote: "The anti-gas "forces" are well-meaning but innefectual dreamers, who feel important and virtuous fighting obvious evil."

I agree with his portrayal (if that's what he is doing...) of shale gas extraction as an "obvious evil". I agree with his portrayal of activists who are fighting this invasion in the Delaware River Basin, and New York State (and Texas, Colorado, New Mexico, Wyoming, South Africa, France (throughout Europe, Australia, and the rest of the world...) as "well meaning".

I disagree with his dismissive characterization of us as either "ineffectual", or "dreamers".

We are pissed off, hard nosed, hard workers, who fight this every day, whatever the outcome of our hard work may turn out to be.

I would also add that the "feelings" he projects onto those in opposition to shale gas extraction, "virtue" and self "importance", don't enter the equation in any activist I know.

We didn't pick this fight. It came to us. We stand firm in opposition, and this local fight has educated many. We are in constant contact throughout the world, and everywhere this atrocity is practiced, is LOCAL. The local, and the grass roots is what makes us effective to whatever degree we are, and will only get stronger.

"It ain't over 'till it's over".


What a surprise, another 'survey' confirming the Park Foundation's elitist narrow-minded views from that wonderful school, Cornell in Ithaca, bastion of buffoonery. Who could have guessed?