Skip to footer

Readers write: ‘Whose Colorado?’ fracking debate, cover art

Letters to the editor for the Dec. 24, 2018 weekly magazine.

|
Courtesy of Erika Deakin
Erie, Colo., resident Erika Deakin jogs on a trail near her home.
  • By Monitor readers

‘Whose Colorado?’ fracking debate

Regarding the Nov. 5 Heart of the News article “Whose Colorado? Fracking debate pits families against industry”: I’m a geologist and a serious environmentalist who is opposed to many specific mining and extraction projects. That said, the proposed 2,500-foot setback is like banning cars because they kill people. You’ve missed a number of points in this story.

The majority of oil wells and fracking operations do not bother anyone, and existing regulations mitigate or resolve most problems. Unfortunately, in a large industry, there are always a few operators that ignore or stretch the rules, a few regulators that look the other way or are too overworked to handle everything, and a few things that go wrong in spite of everyone’s best efforts. This is unfortunate, but it is not justification for shutting down an industry.

The proposed setback has no scientific basis (why not 1000 feet or 5000 feet?), is too broad (it effectively and unnecessarily bans drilling in many areas where it would be welcomed), and is a knee-jerk reaction to a localized problem that could be solved in a less drastic way. The home explosion that you mention was caused by an abandoned pipeline; that problem won’t go away with this law and wouldn’t have happened if the line had been plugged according to existing regulations.

Also, what is not said is that some environmental groups are backing this proposed rule simply because they back anything that restricts oil and gas development and raises oil prices. I too would like to see our country wean itself from oil, but I’m opposed to doing it through false science and misleading claims.

Colin G. Treworgy

Evergreen, Colo.

Response from science editor Noelle Swan:

Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts about Amanda Paulson’s article on Prop. 112. You raise some valid points about the scope of this proposition. The inclusion of the Colorado Springs mayor’s comments was intended to convey that perspective succinctly. It is always a challenge to balance competing perspectives on such politically charged debates. In this case, we have heard from Colorado residents on both sides of the issue wishing that we had made a stronger case for their point of view. Thank you for reading and for taking the time to give us your feedback.

Response from Colin Treworgy:

Thank you for your response. I reread the article, and I agree that the Colorado Springs mayor’s comments and the bullet points following it are a good, succinct summary of that side of the debate. I also wanted to clarify that the last sentence in my original email alleging false science and misleading claims was a comment on the arguments made by supporters of Prop. 112 and not a commentary on the Monitor’s reporting.

Cover art

I loved the cover of the Nov. 12 Weekly Print Edition, which was a tongue-in-cheek updating of Edward Hopper’s “Nighthawks.” Thanks! 

Chuck Green

Ashland, Mass.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.
editor@csmonitor.com
Subscribe
Mark Sappenfield
Editor

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

Subscribe to insightful journalism

QR Code to Readers write: ‘Whose Colorado?’ fracking debate, cover art
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Readers-Respond/2018/1222/Readers-write-Whose-Colorado-fracking-debate-cover-art
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe