When we throw garbage on the ground in a poor neighborhood, just because so many others before us have treated it as a trash can, it not only harms the environment, but it diminishes the quality of life for the people who call the area home. When we favor cheap energy and disregard the resulting pollution to the air, water and land, we also are saying we don’t care about the health of people who must drink water contaminated with hazardous chemicals or breathe in dirty air as a result. When we buy cheap goods that will quickly be consumed and thrown away, we are saying we don’t care about neighborhoods sited next to landfills or the cheap labor used to produce such goods.

And, consider that if you do not care if other people on this planet have to drink water polluted by the byproducts of energy production, eat foods contaminated by unsanitary conditions  and agricultural runoff, and breath in air dirtied by traffic congestion–surely others are treating you with the same disregard.

The earth is a closed system. How we care for the well-being of all living creatures on this earth as well as the land, sea and air impacts us all.

– By Jennifer E. Cooper

Natural gas has been billed as a “clean” and inexpensive form of energy. But, when it is extracted from the ground through a process called fracking, it can contaminate nearby water supplies, pollute the air and cause serious negative health impacts for both the humans and animals who live nearby.

And, as many who live near fracking sites have discovered, their water not only looks, smells and tastes funny, but it also can be lit on fire.

To extract natural gas through fracking, water and a secret cocktail of hundreds of hazardous chemicals are pumped deep into the earth. An EPA report in 2004 determined that fracking did not pose a threat to drinking water and Congress exempted fracking fluids from the Safe Drinking Water Act in 2005.

Last week the EPA announced that it would revisit fracking’s health and environmental impacts, a major move forward for environmentalists. However, this week, reports have been leaked that the oil and gas industry has inserted language banning federal regulation of fracking into the climate and energy bill being negotiated by Senators Kerry, Graham and Lieberman.

Beyond the potential for contamination of water supplies, the fracking process itself uses millions of gallons of water. No problem you say, the planet is some 70 percent water. Unfortunately only 3 percent of the world’s water is freshwater and half of that is locked in the polar ice caps and glaciers. The world’s supply of freshwater is dwindling, a situation all too familiar in the West.

Further, according to a new report by the United Nations called Sick Water, it has been found that 3.7 percent of all deaths in the world are caused by water-related illnesses. Considering that while cheap energy is nice, we all need water to live, we must ask ourselves, why we do not step forward and demand action.

We can no longer afford to recklessly waste our water and pollute our air in the name of cheap energy. So many say they want clean energy–but what people really mean is they want clean energy as long as it doesn’t cost too much. Unfortunately, everything has a cost. The question is when you pay. Natural gas may initially appear less expensive than say wind energy. But is it still cheaper once the costs from things like the human health toll, air pollution and the destruction of nearby watersheds are included?

So, we must ask ourselves: do we want cheap energy at the expense of clean water?

– By Jennifer E. Cooper

Today, as I watched a screening of Josh Fox’s documentary GasLand, about natural gas extraction by means of a hydraulic drilling process called “fracking,” it struck me just how often we allow short-term greed to stand in the way of what is best for everyone over the long term.

Natural gas has been billed as a “clean” and inexpensive form of energy. But, when it is extracted from the ground through fracking, it can contaminate nearby water supplies, pollute the air and cause serious negative health impacts for both the humans and animals who live nearby.

So many say they want clean energy–but what people really mean is they want clean energy as long as it doesn’t cost too much. Unfortunately, everything has a cost. The question is when you pay. Coal may initially see less expensive than say wind energy. But is it still cheaper once the costs from things like the human health toll from mining, the destruction of nearby watersheds and the release of mercury into the air are included?

The same can be said for ensuring that everyone has a job that pays a livable wage. Business owners may argue that they cannot afford to pay employees higher wages. But can we afford to subsidize the housing, food and health care of those who are not paid a livable wage?

When we buy a $19 pair of jeans or a $10 pair of shoes we neglect the cost on the developing nations. Third World workers bear the real costs in lower wages as do struggling domestic businesses who lose out to cheap imports. Further, a recent study by the scientists at the Carnegie Institution for Science found that more than a third of carbon dioxide emissions associated with the consumption of goods and services in many developed nations are emitted outside their borders.

Roughly 2.5 tons of carbon dioxide per person are consumed in the U.S. but produced somewhere else. In Europe the figure can exceed four tons per person. Suddenly the $10 pair of shoes is not so cheap.

When measuring cost, we must include these external hidden fees. To neglect to do so paints an inaccurate picture of the true expense of polluting our environment, ill-paying workers and damaging human health.

– By Jennifer E. Cooper

Route 30 as it heads east from Breezewood is no place to be walking. Large trucks whiz by; the shoulder of the road is miniscule; and in the heat of the sun it is miserable. Slathered in sunscreen and breathing in car exhaust I couldn’t help but think of the long-term damage this was surely doing to my body.

Environmental Working Group tested 1,723 sunscreens for a special report earlier this year and found that three out of five offer inadequate protection from the sun or actually contain toxic ingredients. As someone with fair skin I do not want to be put in the position of having to decide between putting harmful chemicals on my body or putting myself at risk of skin cancer–or possibly both.

And the air I am breathing is not much better. In a new study by environmental health researchers from UCLA, USC and the California Air Resources Board, it was found that air pollutants traveled farther and lingered longer than previously believed. This is not good for myself and others who find themselves breathing the air alongside highways.

– By Jennifer E. Cooper