Should We Ban Fracking?
Man, life is tough sometimes. One of my very best friends, a devout environmentalist, asked me today how involved I was on the 2014 California referendum that would ban fracking in our county (Santa Barbara, CA). It’s called “Measure P.”
I began to explain, “The concept of fracking is far more complicated than most people understand.” No sooner were those words out of my mouth than I realized how condescending this was coming off. Fortunately, we became distracted and we dropped the subject.
Here are three basics on the subject that make it so unwieldy. The first two bullet points would suggest a “No on P” vote, which would continue to allow fracking.
• None of the actual dangers that are popularly associated with fracking: overuse of water, injection of toxic chemicals into the regions 15K feet deep, pollution of aquifers/drinking water, earthquakes, etc., has any real scientific validity.
• Fracking offsets a great deal of the energy that would otherwise be generated by coal, whose health-related consequences are far worse than anything we could possibly learn about the hazards of fracking, even in our worst nightmares. As senior energy analyst Glenn Doty notes:
Last year we went into winter with a record natural gas inventory level, and we came out with a low that we haven’t hit in 20 years. Had it not been for fracking, our inventory level would have been more than a trillion cubic feet lower going into the wintertime, and there would have been shortages that would literally have resulted in people freezing to death. That’s not hyperbole, that’s a real effect.
This year, because we drew down our inventory levels so far, there has been less reliance on natural gas for electric power production… And coal power has increased its load by 42 TWh for the first half of the year. That’s ~15 million tons of additional coal consumed in 6 months, because we had a draw-down of an extra Tcf. Imagine if our production level were 10 Tcf lower per year – due to the loss of Fracking. That would mean ~800 million tons of additional coal consumption, and people literally freezing to death.
There has not been one single shred of evidence that fracking results in more pollution than old-style vertical drilling. There’s no reasonable postulates put forward as to why fracking would result in more pollution than normal vertical drilling (aside from the obvious: greater consumption.)
And for that you’re willing to make thousands of people freeze to death and commit this country to burning 800 million more tons of coal per year?
But the last bullet point makes this a far more complicated exercise, and would suggest a “Yes on P” vote:
• The people who are putting real heavy-duty resources behind the espousal of fracking, i.e., the oil companies, couldn’t care less about you, your health, your kids, the skies, the oceans, the plants, or the animals. As hard as it may be for most people to fathom, they care only about one thing: money. Fracking makes the continued exploitation of fossil fuels cost-effective indefinitely. 97% of our most senior scientists tell us that this is likely to ruin our planet. That’s quite a consequence.
Again (unfortunately), it’s just not that simple.
Thanks for referencing this article in another post.
Your acceptance of the fracking is partially based upon the assertion that fracking does no harm… except in its consumption (which is more than harm enough for the second conclusion.) Could I assume you would change your position if some “science” conclusively suggested a strong correlation between fracking and increased escaping methane, spills of toxic recovered fracking fluid into surface streams and aquifers, or the other things you specifically mentioned: “overuse of water, injection of toxic chemicals into the regions 15K feet deep, pollution of aquifers/drinking water, earthquakes?” For my part I was not aware that the science was settled on these issues. I have read of examples of all these things. They may be isolated incidents that have been sensationalized but nevertheless they do seem to have occurred.
But even assuming all your facts are in line. It is an interesting analysis that seems to suggest two consequences: A: people freezing to death, increased pollution from burning coal or B: we could continue fracking and totally destroy the planet. Your preference for fracking then seems to favor the short term saving of immediate marginal lives vs preserving the environment in the long term. The thinking reminds me of a stranded group reviewing their supplies and realizing that there is not enough food and water to support the entire group by the time help is expected. These are some very hard decisions. But by choosing the first option you seem to acquiesce to the psychopathic corporate perspective. It is an approach full of compassion but also futility but also a result of a bit of fear mongering by the oil perspective. I wonder if there is a better way.
In the starvation scenario we might hope some would simply walk off to preserve the rest of the group and so sacrifice themselves for the benefit of others. I don’t think we can expect oil companies to simply walk into the renewable sunset. Should the weakest be preserved? Should some measure be made of contribution to the overall success of survival? Sometimes as in the case of the oil companies the strongest are the problem.
Some who favor a ban on fracking may be naive and so may not understand the ramifications. I am concerned when an opposing side dictates “this is what you think…” Usually such a pronouncement lacks subtlety and is an oversimplification. Some may also understand the implications very well and continue to favor a ban. Those people probably feel that as a society we have very difficult time making decisions and it is only a tragedy or calamity that seems to force the issue. Almost every war fought by the US was preceded by such an event. Maybe a peacetime shift in our dangerous direction on fossil fuels will require such extremes. It is not a fearful or reactionary approach but it can be a though-out and determined albeit sad choice.
Ever since man began living in cities, there has always been someone, yearning for a more “natural’ life.
These individuals preach a highly romanticized ‘moral’, but completely unrealistic interpretation of man’s role on the planet. The human species was not put on the planet for the benefit of the planet. Mankind is motivated by self-interest, and self preservation.
From time to time, civilization provides some privileged individuals, enough security to ponder, philosophize and pontificate on the virtues of aesthetic values.
The majority of humans must concentrate on providing sufficiently strong economies to feed, clothe and defend their offspring.
The leaders of nations, and their peoples, must consider ( from self interest) the risks to the future environment, against the risk to national economies and the attendant human misery.
There is no evidence of any real harm from “fracking” if carried out in a responsible manner, in accordance with strict regulations. Currently, there is no alternative.
Supporting “No fracking’ campaigns, with no knowledge of the science and no alternatives, is irresponsible ! Both the environment, and the economy need natural gas to lower emissions, and create sufficient wealth over the next decades, to buy time and provide investment for more environmentally friendly energy sources.
Civilization is all about compromises.
NY state banned fracking. The “scientific” rational was simply that the science was unsettled and controversial. There were too many unknowns for it to be considered safe. http://ecowatch.com/2014/12/17/cuomo-bans-fracking-new-york/
The argument that the science is settled may be premature. The argument that there is no evidence of harm may be a bit like someone falling from a 100 story building saying as they pass each floor: “Their is no evidence of harm from falling…”
A Cornell study suggests that harm from fracking exceeds that posed by the use of coal: http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/2011/04/fracking-leaks-may-make-gas-dirtier-coal see also http://www.msnbc.com/up-with-steve-kornacki/fracking-transforming-our-energy-economy on the alternative to fracking is not necessarily more coal.
There are alternatives to fracking that do not include expanding coal production: https://contributoria.com/issue/2014-08/5392eccaf461286f4f00012b
To say that: “Supporting “No fracking’ campaigns, with no knowledge of the science and no alternatives, is irresponsible!” is in itself irresponsible because there are viable alternatives and the statements about the harm of fracking are very valid. Who in the world wants to see flames coming from their water faucets?
Les and breathonthewind,
I did not suggest any science is settled ! In fact “science” should never “settled”. The quest for scientific knowledge should never be fettered by the fear of upsetting previous beliefs.
But “banning ” any technology, on the basis of what might happen, with any real evidence, is irresponsible. All technology , especially in resource extraction, requires monitoring, and is a process of accumulating knowledge and developing better technologies as the process continues.
That’s just how human progress works ! We don’t live in Utopia. The world, particularly the US, desperately needs economically viable energy.
Every form of human endeavor contain elements of risk. Fracking is no different. Certainly, the industry needs ever evolving regulations, and research to help minimize any risks. That’s quite accepted. Informed public debate should also be encouraged (without hysterical conspiracy theories and absurdly unscientific propaganda).
There are no viable economic alternatives. The fact that you repeat the same old discredited nonsense about “flames from water pipes”, show you have very little understanding of the technology, relying on the long discredited, but sensationalist propaganda by shows like “Gasland”.
One of the most beneficial medical discoveries, in history the development of a safe vaccine against smallpox in 1796, by Dr Edward Jenner, was initially greeted with ridicule, fear and hatred. Although today, Dr Jenner is often referred to as “the father of immunology”, and his work is said to have saved more lives than the work of any other human.Dr Jenner was persecuted, and struggled for many years to have his theories accepted.
After all, Christopher Columbus would have never set out on his perilous journey, had he listen to those who advised his that it was proven to be safe !
As I say, all human endeavor is about compromise. The ambulance that take your loved one to that hospital, pollutes, or even risks being involved in a collision. The powerful motor in a Fire Engine, creates pollution, but in putting out fires, also suppresses pollution.
Civilization, has always been a compromise between the necessary, and the ideal.