Yoko Ono And Sean Lennon Post New York Times Ad: ‘Imagine There’s No Fracking’

Last week, Sean Lennon and his mother Yoko Ono posted this ad in the New York Times:

The son and wife of the late John Lennon posted this message as part of Artists Against Fracking. The ad explains:

No amount of regulation can ever make fracking safe. No one can be sent thousands of feet under the earth to make repairs once the cement fails – and it will. The enormous pressure and temperature changes at those depths guarantee it…

Fracked gas is not climate friendly. Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas that leaks from the failed wells, fractured rock and pipelines….

New York can become the Clean Energy Empire State. With an economy bolstered by insulating all buildings. This way we could save far more energy and create FAR more jobs than fracking, plus save consumers money forever. And let’s scale up solar and wind power with a smart grid for truly clean, economical energy.


11 Responses to Yoko Ono And Sean Lennon Post New York Times Ad: ‘Imagine There’s No Fracking’

  1. Leif says:

    A letter posted to The CEO of Chevron visa Trip Fenton Blog.

    “Thank you Trip. I would like to add that I would pledge my future fuel consumption needs, as the transition will be slow, to the first major fuel producer that step aboard the green energy bus. (Not a green washing effort, the real deal.) Some one will do it. It is inevitable. So Mr. Watson, what will it be? Litigation and trials pitting you and yours against Humanity and Earth’s Life Support Systems, or an opportunity to prosper in the long term solutions?

    In fact that might be an interesting tactic to employ Trip, start a petition to get other people to pledge. It might have legs.”

    Perhaps even offer a bit, (not complete), of litigation cover in the process. The only thing that Fossil Barons understand is “Money,” well this has the potential to be BIG MONEY!

  2. Omega Centauri says:

    I like it. Now we need to re-record the song and release it.
    No fraking fracking.

  3. Michael Berndtson says:

    Irony alert! New York times takes ad dollars from Yoko and Sean yet endorse Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) export today 12/16/12: “Sending Natural Gas Abroad” in the Sunday Review section.

    The entire reason for endorsing LNG exports is to keep shale gas production in business. The domestic market isn’t keeping up with the capital sunk for rapid development and delivery. An analogy would be the housing boom. Too many homes and condos built on speculation – too few people to fill those homes for the inflated asking price. Because the US has immigration restriction the market collapses. Gas is different because it can be cooled and condensed into liquid and transported over seas. Exurban McMansion and urban condo exporting is much more problematic.

  4. rollin says:

    Thanks for posting this, it looks like a solid campaign effort to stop fracking in NY. Now if only that could be said about Pennsylvania.

  5. Linda says:

    Thank you. We have the same problem in PA. We are south of NY and south of the fracking sites here too. We are worried about the flow of the Susquehanna to the water table that feeds our well and finally the fate of the Chesapeake bay and the crabs and oysters.

  6. Polymerase says:

    I actually worked on a frack crew in the 70’s during the summers while I was college student in Texas. My job included climbing inside of dirty frack tanks and cleaning them out with a fire hose. As such, I know firsthand what a messy business can fracking can be. It is unsurprising that, as fracking has moved into regions of the US where people do not have the long familiarity with oil and gas extraction that Texans have, it has encountered such immediate and forceful opposition.

    I am now a Ph.D. scientist working full-time on renewable energy development and a lifetime member of the Sierra Club. I question, however, if opposition to fracking on the basis of its GHG emissions is rational. Certainly there are problems with fugitive methane emissions, but these have been shown in a recent peer-reviewed study to be a small component of the total GHG footprint of shale gas (see and ). From the abstract:

    “Using the current state of knowledge of methane emissions from shale gas, conventional natural gas, coal, and petroleum, we estimated up-to-date life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, we developed distribution functions for key parameters in each pathway to examine uncertainty and identify data gaps such as methane emissions from shale gas well completions and conventional natural gas liquid unloadings that need to be further addressed. Our base case results show that shale gas life-cycle emissions are 6% lower than conventional natural gas, 23% lower than gasoline, and 33% lower than coal.”

    Certainly fracking has significant environmental hazards and needs to be much more highly regulated than it currently is. Also, as we all know, fracking consumes an enormous amount of water, as do the life-cycles of every thermal energy generation process, including biomass conversion to power and transportation fuels. There may, however, be realistic ways to address these problems with shale gas and gain the immediate GHG reductions we reap when an NGCC power plant replaces an old, dirty coal plant.

    I understand and respect the arguments of Bill McKibben and others on the desirability of, starting now, leaving all reserves of fossil fuels in the ground. But we all know that is not going to happen, under any circumstances, within the next 20 years. As such, when it comes to global climate change, is it really rational to oppose shale gas production over this time frame? Answers citing peer-reviewed evidence are most welcome.

    If I were a coal baron, I would send my check to Yoko Ono and Artists Against Fracking today.

  7. Mike Roddy says:

    Gas is better than coal. So what? Arsenic is better than cyanide, too. In case you didn’t notice, Polymerase, we have this little global warming problem, which requires us to get off all fossil fuels for power production. Entrenching gas plants for the next few decades is a step backwards.

    A carbon tax and an awakened public are what will kill coal, not gas.

    And love to Yoko and Sean for stepping up here. I wish some of our far wealthier billionaires would make similar gestures, instead of investing in coal trains and talking a good game about renewable energy.

  8. John Gray says:

    Thank you, Yoko and Sean!

  9. DollySue says:

    I live in Florida, the SunShine State, best place to do the Solar thing, yet we are last on the list? Instead the Power Plants down-dated to NASTIER Fossil Fuels… FPL needed funds so they built a “little” Solar Power Station in Arcadia to impress the President, yet when he visited, our Republican Governor wouldn’t even take time out to meet and greet him? So, what is wrong with our Department of Energy? Answer- The Party of “NO” Visit Justin Hall’s page, technology warrants “FREE” Clean Energy via a little black e-box! Nikola Telsa presented similar inventions long ago and JP Morgan burned down his workshop, pushed Edison’s work instead. Eventually the Government stole his inventions, hid them from the world!

  10. Karl schubuert says:

    Sounds nice but I hear no dissenters. I find that interesting at least I would suspect some other views for some objectivity. Yes your accurate there is a lot of contamination but not just the water and air. Also and more importantly the violent from music industry and the Hollywood industry and the more powerful video game empire and we all know all too well the results of that contamination or don’t we?