Environmental issues are an ever-present debate between Republicans and Democrats. The politics of fracking are especially severe, with liberals fighting tooth and nail to put a stop to it. Fracking, or hydraulic fracturing, is the process of retrieving natural gas by drilling and injecting a fluid into the ground at a pressure high enough to fracture shale rocks, releasing the gas. Although it provides the United States with much-needed energy, fracking takes an extreme toll on the environment and should be stopped.
The impacts of fracking can be seen in air and water pollution, soil spill contamination, and even earthquakes. The U.S. alone holds over 500,000 active fracking wells. To complete one fracking job, water is mixed with sand and 40,000 gallons of chemicals, which is then injected into the ground. Contamination of nearby groundwater is not unheard of-- studies show that the water near one of these wells has a concentration of methane 17 times higher than normal and over 1000 recorded cases of water contamination. Methane, the main constituent of natural gas, is 25 times more apt than carbon dioxide to trap heat in the atmosphere, making it a prime suspect in global warming. In addition, a mere 30 to 50 percent of the water, sand, and chemical mixture is recovered, leaving the rest of this toxic fluid in the ground where it can evaporate and create contaminated air and acid rain.
Because of oil and gas drilling alone, a 2007 report predicted that Montana would see a 310 percent increase in smog, and in Ohio, 77 minor earthquakes occurred in the span of one month and were all linked to fracking activity. The consequences of hydraulic fracturing are ubiquitous.
The arguments in favor of fracking usually consist of claims of its ability to produce jobs; banning fracking means higher rates of unemployment. Even so, as of 2013, oil and gas sectors only accounted for 2.5 percent of the GDP. Furthermore, an IDDRI report suggests fracking will only help the country's GDP see a .84 percent growth between 2012 and 2035. France, Scotland, Germany, and Bulgaria have all banned fracking because of environmental concerns; it is high time the U.S. did the same.
Now, I am not suggesting the government implement a sudden and swift shutdown of all fracking wells; putting a stop to this destructive, yet somewhat useful, practice will take some time. If we begin by stopping the creation of new wells, then periodically impose more and more regulations (while simultaneously placing our focus on renewable energy research) until eventually stopping altogether, we can limit the damage of fracking and save the Earth.
Deena Ismail recently wrote a blog post about fracking, arguing that the practice needs to stop altogether to prevent further environmental damage. While I completely agree that hydraulic fracturing is dangerous to the environment and should be stopped, I disagree with the argument that it must be stopped immediately. I also would like to point out that there are some substantial reasons why fracking is currently supported in the United States.
ReplyDeleteIt is clear that fracking has negative consequences towards the environment. However, it is possible that there are some positive externalities from fracking. For example, we can look at the entire energy market. On a supply and demand basis, the ease and availability of fracking means that the supply of natural gas has increased, driving the price down relative to other energy sources. I would like to point out one source in particular: coal. The increase in fracking means that our reliance on coal has decreased, lowering the negative environmental effects of coal – effects that are worse than those associated with fracking. So while natural gas will still have global warming emissions, these are much lower than coal or oil emissions. While I will admit that methane emissions are not well studied and could be on the same level as coal, that just means at the very worst fracking is as environmentally harmful as coal production.
Fracking is not going to be a long term alternative to other energy sources. But as it stands right now, it is helping to reduce coal production and resuming interest in research and development in a field that has grown stagnant. Oil and gas is finally beginning to move forward in new, innovative technologies; sure, fracking may have arisen from this innovation, but at the same time, other possible sources of energy, especially renewable ones, are being explored.
There is a political perspective as well – fracking has contributed largely to the decline of foreign oil imports to the United States. In fact, there is the argument now that the United States could consider becoming a player in exporting natural gas, especially to the European Union, which is trying to reduce its Russian oil imports. Even when OPEC decided to cut its oil prices to combat fracking in the United States, it did not do much to alter the fact that the country has dramatically reduced its foreign oil imports. In short, fracking has improved global stability and decreased the influence of oil in politics.
I do agree that fracking needs to undergo more regulations and limitations, just as do other sources such as oil or electricity. However since it is such a localized issue in terms of employment and negative effects, it should be left to the local and state officials, not the national government.
Sources: Union of Concerned Scientists, Dr. David Spence of the School of Law at The University of Texas at Austin, Sheril Kirshenbaum of The Energy Poll at The University of Texas at Austin