A recent article in National Geographic (on-line) captured my attention this morning. Specifically the author’s phrase, “…windfall of homegrown energy.” Considering the traditional natural science orientation of the publication, I was surprised that the article skipped over the relationship between earthquakes and fracking as well as the damage done by toxic waste released through hydraulic fracturing above and below ground.  It also left out the multi-billion dollar investments by China and other countries into fracking operations in the United States, as well as the recent $15.1 billion dollar acquisition by China of Canada’s leading petroleum producer AND China’s purchase ($2.1 billion) of Canada’s oil sands producing entity OPTI Canada Inc.

Given China’s environmental record, the quality of drinking water in the United States and Canada is at risk in both near and long-term.

The Federal Government and the State of Alaska are still working on settling $92 million dollars in damages from the 1989 Exxon-Valdez oil disaster.  As I write there is still oil on beaches affected by this spill and neither state or federal governments can collect damages from a multi-national oil company twenty years later.   With an industry track record like this who can honestly believe that there will be any significant accountability (or remediation) once ground water contamination from fracking is documented?

Wyoming currently has an estimated 20,000 abandoned, uncapped wells which were used in fracking which represent billions of gallons of fresh water and  hundreds of miles of roads cut into wilderness¹.  Now that the rape of the land is complete, who or what will attempt even minimal repair of our land?

The cornucopia view promulgated by fracking proponents is that of a boundless, infinite, self-replenishing view of the natural world.  This naive concept was a fundamental basis in Marxist economic theory. This same Marxist notion is now advanced by petroleum interests as part of their public relations program. It is also a flat-out, bald-faced lie.

The irony of National Geographic’s masthead is patent:
“National Geographic: Inspiring people to care about the planet since 1888″

There are three articles in the English language: the, a, and an.  The is a definite article, referring to a specific noun (e.g. “the planet”) which connotes separation and distinction from the self and that other object.  Our is a possessive pronoun indicating ownership (e.g. “our planet”).

National Geographic’s choice of words is a distinction engineered for a calculated difference.  Through the deliberate use of  “the” when referring to environmental issues, a conceptual schism is created with regard to our biosphere:  “the planet” is fundamentally different from “our planet”.

The question becomes has National Geographic joined Shell’s public relations pulpit or was this article simply a naïve lapse in critical thinking?

Peter Terezakis
San Diego, 2013