Ramadan ding-dong

Ramadan ding-dong Foreign conflicts stoke sectarian squabbles among British Muslims Jun 27th 2015 | BRADFORD | From the print edition The crescent and the cross BY THE bloody standards of Middle Eastern sectarianism, it is a slight affair. On the fourth day of Ramadan, dawn worshippers in Bradford found the wall of their husseiniya, or Shia mosque, daubed with the word “KAFIR” (infidel). But flare-ups, once rare, between Britain’s 400,000-odd Shias and 2.3m Sunnis are on the rise. Safdar Shah, one of the husseiniya’s founders, says that 30 years ago, when most of the city’s Sunnis and Shias arrived from the Pakistani side of Kashmir, they often prayed together. But over the past year leaflets denouncing Shias have circulated on city buses, and Sunnis have launched a boycott of two Shia-owned takeaways in Little Horton, a neighbourhood where over half the population is Asian. A flurry of tweets enjoin Sunnis to “stay away from Shia”. Community elders fear the identity politics sweeping the Middle East are seeping into Britain’s school playgrounds, prisons and mosques. “We all condemn atrocities in Palestine, but Sunnis just shrug when Shias in Pakistan are massacred in their mosques,” says a teacher who is Shia. He complains of heckling by Sunni students, including the 12-year-old son of one of three Bradford sisters who recently took their children to join Islamic State’s “caliphate”. Some Muslim organisations like TELL MAMA, which campaigns against Islamophobia, have been quick to argue for a proactive response, but the largest are sluggish and reactive. The Muslim Council of Britain, an umbrella group, released a denunciation of the Bradford graffiti only after a call from this newspaper. Opinion is divided over the cause of the surge in identity politics. “When people are unhappy, have no jobs and are disaffected they need a pastime,” says Nussrat Mohammed, a Labour councillor. Unlike the gleaming glass towers of nearby Leeds, Bradford’s squat skyline of sandstone seems stuck in the time-warp of the Industrial Revolution (bar the minarets). Residents accuse the council, the government and above all Britain’s sometimes histrionic media for portraying the city as a trough of extremism. Others say preachers stoke the division. Most of the country’s 27 Muslim seminaries are Deobandi, a purist form of South Asian Islam. Once a minority among Pakistanis in Britain, with the young this puritanical tendency is gaining ground against the Barelvi tradition, whose colourful customs reflect the popular religious practices of Pakistan. Sectarian battles in Pakistan and the Gulf ripple back to Bradford. Outside the town hall, Sunnis and Shias have staged protests against rival factions in Syria’s civil war. “The politics there are played out here,” says Amjad Pervez, a leading local businessman, who worries that Kashmiri politicians join the campaign trail in Bradford’s elections. “The monsters fed from abroad have grown too big to be handled by one organisation—even the British government,” he says. Tensions seem containable. Thousands of Shias from across northern England each year commemorate Ashura, the martyrdom of the Prophet Muhammad’s grandson, by marching through Bradford’s streets beating their chests, to only mild abuse from a few Sunnis. And in death more than life, Sunnis and Shias go side by side. The headstones and piles of flowers at the Scholemoor cemetery seem to get larger by the year, despite a Wahhabi rejection of the practice as ancestor worship. But outside school gates Shia parents waiting for their children are worried. A seven-year-old returned home complaining that classmates had threatened to “slaughter you when you grow up”. Three of the four London suicide-bombers a decade ago came from Yorkshire; so did the 17-year-old who blew himself up earlier this month in an IS attack in Syria, worries a Bradford mother. She wants police to protect her husseiniya and wonders whether she should keep the felt stencil of Imam Ali, underlined with a sword, swinging from the car mirror. “We used to say the attacks sweeping the Muslim world could never happen here,” she says. “I’m no longer sure.” Editor’s note: the Muslim Council of Britain has told us that it had drafted a statement condemning the vandalism before being contacted by The Economist, though it issued no statement until the following day. We are happy to clarify this.

Fracking opponents in Pennsylvania dealt rare victory by state court

Fracking opponents in Pennsylvania dealt rare victory by state court Published time: December 20, 2013 00:31 Get short URL A natural gas well is drilled near Canton, in Bradford County, Pennsylvania.(Reuters / Les Stone) Court, Energy, Fracking, Gas, Health, Law, USA The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a 2012 fracking law allowing gas companies to drill anywhere in the state without regard to local zoning laws is unconstitutional. The court’s decision called the state’s Marcellus Shale drilling law, Act 13, unconstitutional given restrictions it placed on municipalities’ rights. The ruling also sent back to Commonwealth Court - one of Pennsylvania’s appellate courts - challenges by local townships and individuals to the law’s provisions that barred doctors from passing along to patients the health risks associated with shale drilling, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported. In the majority opinion, the justices cited Article 1 Section 27 of the Pennsylvania State Constitution, which guarantees the “right to clean air, pure water, and to the preservation of the natural, scenic, historic and esthetic values of the environment.” “When government acts, the actions must on balance reasonably account for the environment of the affected locale,” wrote the majority, Chief Justice Ronald Castille and Justices Debra McCloskey Todd, Seamus McCaffery and Max Baer. Dissenting opinions were written by Justices Thomas Saylor and J. Michael Eakin. Commission President Deron Gabriel of South Fayette, one of the municipalities challenging the law, said the decision preserves local communities’ rights in the face of an unrelenting industry.

“Preserving zoning is vital to local planning efforts, in order to keep industrial activity out of residential and commercial areas,” Gabriel told the Post-Gazette. “Now we can keep industrial activities away from our school and residences, and there’s been more and more of a push by the industry to locate closer to the residential areas.”

John Smith, the attorney who brought the case for South Fayette and other localities, said the decision was, overall, a victory for citizens standing up against the state’s favorable treatment of corporate interests over the rights of the people. “We got the major thrust of what we were looking for," he said. "The drill-everywhere provision was declared unconstitutional and that part of the law was permanently enjoined.” Gov. Tom Corbett, who supported and signed the legislation, said he was disappointed by the ruling, maintaining that the provision respected local government rights and environmental concerns.

“The Act was crafted with strong input and support from Pennsylvania’s local government organizations,” he said in a statement. “We must not allow today’s ruling to send a negative message to job creators and families who depend on the energy industry. I will continue to work with members of the House and Senate to ensure that Pennsylvania’s thriving energy industry grows and provides jobs while balancing the interests of local communities.”

The State Department of Environmental Protection, which argued against the challenge and in favor of Act 13, did not issue a comment. Dave Spigelmyer, president of gas industry lobby group Marcellus Shale Coalition, said drilling companies will review the decision and determine what’s next for fracking in Pennsylvania. “Although we will continue to collaborate with communities across the Commonwealth, today’s decision is a disappointment and represents a missed opportunity to establish a standard set of rules governing the responsible development and operation of shale gas wells in Pennsylvania,” he said in statement. He went on to stress the need for drilling to improve the state’s economic outlook. Critics of the law in the state Legislature applauded the ruling for protecting municipal control against energy company power. State Rep. Jesse White (D) added that the decision was an affirmation of the state constitution’s guarantee of “clean air and clean water.” “[A] clear message has been sent to Governor Corbett and his friends in the energy industry: Our fundamental constitutional principles cannot be auctioned off to wealthy special interests in exchange for campaign dollars. On this day, David has defeated Goliath,” White said. Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, is the highly controversial process of injecting water, sand and various chemicals into layers of rock in hopes of releasing oil and gas deep underground. Pennsylvania is ground zero in the current US fracking boom, with several companies taking advantage of the great reserves contained within the Marcellus Shale region of the state. Supporters say fracking brings jobs and opportunities for energy independence, though detractors have pointed to exaggerated employment claims, not to mention the health risks related to chemicals used in the practice. According to a 2010 congressional investigation, Halliburton along with other fracking companies had used 32 million gallons of diesel products, including toxic chemicals such as benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene. Low levels of exposure to such chemicals can trigger headaches and dizziness, while higher exposure can cause cancer. In October, researchers found high levels of radioactivity, salts, and metals in water and sediment located downstream from a treatment facility which processes fracking wastewater from oil and gas production sites in Pennsylvania’s Marcellus shale formation. A new report published this week in the latest edition of the journal Endocrinology shows a dozen chemicals used regularly in fracking are suspected of being endocrine disrupting chemicals, or EDCs — chemicals that can interfere with the human body’s endocrine functions and have been linked to heightened risks of cancer, low fertility rates and decreased sperm quality. The widespread drilling technique is receiving scrutiny across the US, including places where energy development is commonplace. Dallas, Texas recently passed new restrictions that bar hydraulic fracturing within 1,500 feet of a home, school, church, and other protected areas. The new rules effectively ban the practice within the city. In addition, voters in four cities in the state of Colorado recently succeeded in either banning or suspending hydraulic fracturing, despite heavy spending by the oil and gas industry to the tune of $870,000 to defeat the measures. All four of those measures passed in Colorado will face legal challenges by the fracking industry along with the office of Governor John Hickenlooper, which has expressed the position that the municipalities lack the authority to determine the use of the state’s natural resources. In August, the 7- and 10-year-old children of a Pennsylvania couple that reached a settlement following a lawsuit involving health issues brought on by fracking were barred from discussing details of the case for the rest of their lives. The Pennsylvania family reached a $750,000 settlement with the gas companies, and have used the award to relocate. In exchange, however, Chris and Stephanie Hallowich agreed that no member of their family could comment on the case “in any fashion whatsoever.”

North Carolinians could be forced to accept fracking on their property

By John Upton Donald Lee Pardue Forced fracking could be coming to Chatham County, N.C. Not willing to sell out to frackers? If you’re a property owner living above natural gas reserves in North Carolina, you might not have a choice. A panel charged by the state’s legislature with developing hydraulic fracturing guidelines recommended Wednesday that property owners be forced to allow drilling beneath their property if enough of their neighbors want it. From the Associated Press: A panel commissioned by state government said Wednesday that forced fracking should be allowed in North Carolina. Forced or compulsory pooling allows the state to let energy companies drill into natural gas reserves under non-consenting property owner’s land. Property owners in the state receive a percentage of the profits from gas extracted from under their property. The study group recommended at least 90 percent of acreage of a drilling area be voluntarily leased before remaining property owners are forcibly pooled. The News & Observer reports that the recommendation is expected to be adopted by the state legislature this fall. More from the article: The proposal by a state study group endorses a rarely used 1945 law that’s never been tried here on the kind of scale that would be required for shale gas exploration, or fracking. Thousands of property owners could potentially be affected in the state’s gas-rich midsection in Lee, Moore and Chatham counties. … “We are talking about a for-profit industry taking away personal freedoms with the blessing of the government,” Therese Vick, a community activist with the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League, told the Compulsory Pooling Study Group. Taking away those personal freedoms is already the norm in some states. In Ohio, there’s an unofficial guideline stating that if 90 percent of property owners in an area consent to the sale of a gas deposit, everybody else has to sell out to frackers too, according to the Compulsory Pooling Study Group’s draft report [PDF]. In Kentucky, the figure is 51 percent. In Virginia, it’s just 25 percent. John Upton is a science fan and green news boffin who tweets, posts articles to Facebook, and blogs about ecology. He welcomes reader questions, tips, and incoherent rants: johnupton@gmail.com. ============= Fracking boom could lead to housing bust By Roger Drouin thinkpanama When it comes to the real estate market in Bradford County, Pa., where 62,600 residents live above the Marcellus Shale, nothing is black and white, says Bob Benjamin, a local broker and certified appraiser. There aren’t exactly “fifty shades of grey,” he says, but residential mortgage lending here is an especially murky situation. When Benjamin fills out an appraisal for a lender, he has to note if there is a fracked well or an impoundment lake on or near the property. “I’m having to explain a lot of things when I give the appraisal to the lender,” he says. “They are asking questions about the well quite often.” And national lenders are becoming more cautious about underwriting mortgages for properties near fracking, even ones they would have routinely financed in the past, Benjamin says. That’s a real problem in Bradford County, where 93 percent of the acreage is now under lease to a gas company. Local banks are still lending because they have to if they want the business in the county, according to Benjamin, who has been involved in the area’s real estate market since 1980. But, he says, “The big boys, Wells Fargo and the other banks are probably pretty similar, they are going to protect their butt.” Lawyers, realtors, public officials, and environmental advocates from Pennsylvania to Arkansas to Colorado are noticing that banks and federal agencies are revisiting their lending policies to account for the potential impact of drilling on property values, and in some cases are refusing to finance property with or even just near drilling activity. Real estate experts say another problematic trend is that many homeowners insurance policies do not cover residential properties with a gas lease or gas well, yet all mortgage companies require homeowners insurance from their borrowers. “Well, that is a conflict,” says Greg May, vice president of residential mortgage lending at Ithaca, N.Y.-based Tompkins Trust Company. Last month, a landowner in Madison, N.Y., was surprised when their insurance company refused to renew their homeowners policy because there is a conventional gas well on their property. While the media and environmental groups have focused on shale drilling’s potential to poison the soil, water, and air, they’ve largely overlooked its potential to poison the real estate market. “I think we are on the tip of this,” says Steve Hvozdovich, Marcellus Shale coordinator for Clean Water Action in Pennsylvania. “Whether you are the homeowner trying to get homeowners insurance or the neighbor [to a fracking site] who is trying to refinance, there are just so many tentacles to this. I don’t think people are grasping all the impacts of natural gas drilling.” Benjamin doesn’t often hear property owners talk about the issue. “I don’t think most are concerned about it,” he says. “But I think they may have to be in the future.” The first denial Brian and Amy Smith live across the street from a new gas well in Daisytown in Washington County, Pa., an hour south of Pittsburgh. Last year, when they applied for a new mortgage on their $230,000 home and hobby farm, they were denied. According to ABC affiliate WTAE, this appears to be the first example in western Pennsylvania of a homeowner being denied a mortgage because of gas drilling on a neighbor’s property: In an email, Quicken Loans told the Smiths, “Unfortunately, we are unable to move forward with this loan. It is located across the street from a gas drilling site.” Two other national lenders also turned down Brian Smith’s application. “I think a lot of folks nationally are watching this case,” says Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.), a congressman who represents areas north and west of Denver. He noted that in his home district fracking leads to a “haircut on a property’s values.” “I think it is something that the banks would frankly be smart to look at,” Polis says. Elisabeth N. Radow, a lawyer and chair of the League of Women Voters of New York State’s Committee on Energy, Agriculture and the Environment, says the Smiths’ story shows that property owners are clearly vulnerable to what happens on their neighbors’ land in fracking territory. “A [fracking] gas well brings commercial activity, can pollute drinking water and devalue the property.” Radow says it’s logical that high-volume horizontal fracturing — an operation in which millions of gallons of water mixed with hundreds of chemicals are pumped horizontally into layers of shale — has lenders worried. “They are trying to protect themselves,” she says. Radow advises people looking to purchase a home anywhere with drilling to do their homework before buying. She predicts that homeowners will start seeing mortgage provisions prohibiting gas drilling. She saw one earlier this month from New Jersey, where the gas industry is lobbying Gov. Chris Christie (R) to open the Delaware River basin to fracking. The Obama administration has so far taken a hands-off approach to regulating fracking, as have many states, so the banks are trying to figure out how to proceed in uncertain territory. “What is the federal government doing to protect the Smiths of the world?” asks John R. Nolon, a land-use and property professor at Pace Law School. “Banks are out there on the frontier of this regulatory chaos saying, ‘We can’t assure ourselves this is a safe technology because there is this fragmented regulatory process.’” A very clear stance The “Mineral, Oil and Gas Rights Rider” [PDF] on loan paperwork from Sovereign Bank says the mortgage will be automatically recalled if the property owner transfers any oil or gas rights or allows any surface drilling activity. It also specifies that owners must “take affirmative steps to prevent the renewal or expansion” of a current gas lease. A spokesperson for Sovereign Bank said the company would not comment for this story. May, the lending firm vice president from Ithaca, says he is neither pro- nor anti-fracking, but he thinks property owners and prospective buyers need to be aware of these kinds of mortgage issues. “That is one of the top lenders that has taken a very clear stance,” May says of the Sovereign Bank document. “We need to pay attention to this.” Another big unknown is how homeowners might be affected by horizontal drilling happening underneath their property, May said. “Horizontal drill bores radiate out from the vertical bore up to one mile in each direction, which could potentially impact other owners’ fee-simple real estate ownership,” May says. The problems are here Twelve hundred miles southwest of Bradford County, Connee Robertson and her husband run an animal rescue center on 1.6 acres overlooking Little Red River in Heber Springs, Ark. Robertson moved to the area in 1993 because she fell in love with this part of the Ozarks known for its pristine rivers and lakes. That was before gas companies such as Chesapeake Energy discovered the Fayetteville shale formation in the early 2000s. Once that happened, the majority of property owners in Heber Springs leased their gas rights. “Everyone saw dollar signs,” Robertson says. “Everyone ends up regretting it. The problems are here now.” Over the past few years, those problems have included earthquakes and drilling crews pulling water out of the Little Red River. One of Robertson’s horses died for unknown reasons, and her neighbors’ wells have been polluted. More recently, Robertson has heard about buyers unable to purchase homes in the area because they can’t secure financing. In the Laurel Highlands area of Pennsylvania’s Allegheny Mountains, traditionally known for tourism and recreation, drilling is scaring off prospective second-home buyers before they even start thinking about mortgages, says Melissa Troutman of the Mountain Watershed Association. She knows of one buyer who left the market after they learned that there was drilling three and a half miles from a home they were looking at. In technical default Many of the largest mortgage institutions have already enacted policies that bar lending to certain properties near gas drilling and gas lines. The Federal Housing Administration’s lending guidelines prohibit financing for homes within 300 feet of a property with “an active or planned drilling site.” In an email response to a question from Grist, FHA spokesman Lemar Wooley explained the reasoning behind the guidelines: FHA is primarily concerned with the health and safety of the occupants of the dwelling. If the property is subject to smoke, fumes, offensive noise and odors, etc. to the extent they would endanger the health of the occupants then the property is ineligible. FHA is also concerned with the risk to the insurance fund. So if the property is subject to those same items and the health of the occupants is not endangered, but the marketability of the property is compromised, the property may not be eligible for FHA insurance. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac also prohibit property owners from signing a gas lease. May said many owners are now in “technical default” under the terms of their mortgage if they signed a gas lease without first getting consent from their lender. Another clause in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac mortgages prohibits hazardous materials on a residential property. “It comes as a surprise to a lot of people. They weren’t aware that their mortgage came with those restrictions,” May said. Back in Bradford County, Benjamin, who plans to retire in 10 or so years, hasn’t decided whether he wants to keep his family in the area, where there are “good and bad points” to the drilling boom. But he knows one thing for sure: Fracking “changed everything” in the region’s real estate market. Roger Drouin is a freelance journalist who covers environmental issues. When he’s not reporting or writing, he is out getting almost lost in the woods. He blogs at rogersoutdoorblog.com. =======================