To what extent should we sacrifice the environment to become energy independent? Today in America, fracking has become a popular mean to extract oil and gas as a new technology, but unfortunately the process poses as a controversial issue throughout the country. Various issues are debated upon the topic as some say it is a better source of alternative fuel, while others argue that hydraulic fracturing, also referred to as fracking, is detrimental to citizens’ health and the environment. Altogether, we should banned the new technology of fracking before it provides long term, detrimental damage -- economic, environmental, and health-wise. There would be minimal impact if we were to stop fracking where we are now as the risks to our health and …show more content…
When talking about the economics of fracking, we must analyze the costs and benefits. According to a Costs of Fracking report, billions of dollars have been used to cover the damages of the drilling. For example, “In Pennsylvania's last extractive boom, the state was stuck with a $5 billion bill to clean up pollution from abandoned mines. What happens when the fracking book is long gone and communities are stuck with the bill?” as said in an article by Tufts Now. The damage done by the machinery and work -- such as road damage from transporting materials, earthquakes, pollution, etc. -- involved in the process of fracking’s cost of production is far more than the benefits of the short term costs and revenue from the industry. Essentially, the costs outweigh the benefits. We should put monetary value on the environment so it is included in the economic system. In an article from Herinst, which discusses the economics and environment issues of fracking, states, “Cost-benefit analysis or CBA is one of the key ways in …show more content…
The environment, in which fracturing sites are located, go from clean landscapes to factory wastelands. Bruce McKenzie Everett, a professor of international business at the Fletcher School, states that “There are air pollution problems and earthquakes from the deep-well injections of the wastewater into the gas-producing shale, as well as significant global warming emissions.” On a superficial level, this obviously shows that fracking aids the deterioration of the environment, but will also leave lasting effects on the land and the people residing in it; earthquakes do not make for safe surroundings and air pollution leads to external bodily irritations and possible respiratory disease -- these all contribute to the list of negative externalities. A primary dispute over the allowance of fracking is its water contamination. An article by Think Process states, “Scientists have found elevated levels of cancer-causing chemicals in the drinking water in North Texas’ Barnett Shale region — where a fracking boom has sprouted more than 20,000 oil and gas wells…. also associated with effects on the respiratory and central nervous system.” If cancer is a side effect from the water contamination, then what makes anyone’s life less valuable than the benefits and profits earned from fracking’s environmental effects? The cost of a life is invaluable compared to the slight sum
Why is fracking dangerous? During the fracking process natural gases are realized into the well where they are drilling often contaminating the nearby groundwater with methane gases and chemical toxins. After the fracking process the waste fluid is evaporated releasing volatile organic compounds causes acid rain, contaminated air, and ozone at
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently adopted the first federal limits on air emissions from oil and gas, creating New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for certain pollutants, such as volatile organic compounds. In New York, fracking has been banned completely after the release of a revealing seven-year study of drilling practices. The future looks bright, and perhaps, as the need for alternative energy sources becomes more prevalent, the US will adopt safer
There are two sides to every argument and hydrofracturing is no different. Phelim McAleer, an investigative journalist and producer of FrackNation, uses logic to convince viewers that fracking does not pose environmental concerns. Josh Fox however, employs a multitude of logical fallacies as well as arguments based on emotions in an attempt to convince the audience that fracturing is bad for the environment. McAleer created his film to refute this opinion. Ultimately, Phelim McAleer’s documentary made a better argument than Josh Fox’s documentary.
Fracking fluid not only contains chemicals that have been known to cause cancer, but it also contains a number of endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs). EDCs have been linked to sex changes in wildlife and contaminated water have also caused fish deaths. Over 100 are EDCs that have been linked to respiratory, gastrointestinal, neurological, and reproductive conditions. These evidences are confirmed that fracking can cause species to die and to become sick with just touching the water or the air. You need to know that fracking can have a potential effect on our lovely planet.
Rumpler also points out that fracking is exempt from many regulations placed by the government. Fracking does not have to comply with the Safe Water Drinking Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, or the Resource Conservation Recovery Act. All of these regulations are in place to make sure our environment stays beautiful and safe
At what measure does the cost of an action outweigh its benefits? Is it the profit to be gained? Is it the environmental effects? Or is it the lives it affects? Hydraulic Fracturing or “Fracking” is the process of extracting natural gas from the ground using water mixed with “fracking chemicals,” and it recently gained great popularity with energy companies due to the immense amount of gas available under the United States.
1. Even though fracking reduces carbon emissions, it is still harmful to the environment. For example: water pollution/contamination. There can be accidental seeping of the chemicals (possibly carcinogenic) and can contaminate groundwater around the site due to bad practice (this imposes harm to both the ecosystem and people 's health).
With the money from fracking more fracking sites can be built and more natural gas can be
Some people believe that the environment isn 't being harmed by everyday production, but one can argue that as people move closer to fracking industries, people become exposed to harmful gases and chemicals. Fracking a destructive force, is it safe, is it reasonable, is it right? As Chris Hedges explains in his article “Death By Fracking”, he says, “There are more than 15 million Americans, many of them children, who live within a mile of a fracking site. Most are being exposed daily to a deadly brew of toxins. Because the oil and gas industry is not required under law to disclose the chemicals used in
By fracking for natural gas and shifting from coal to natural gas power generation plants, we could benefit economically, save our environment, and save millions of gallons of
Controversy Surrounding the Keystone XL Pipeline To build or not to build, this choice will impact the relationship between the US and Canada and determine the level of dependence the US will have on countries that are not so friendly. “TransCanada’s proposed Keystone XL Pipeline would transport oil sands crude from Canada and shale oil produced in North Dakota and Montana to a market hub in Nebraska for delivery to Gulf Coast refineries. The pipeline would consist of 875 miles of 36-inch pipe with the capacity to transport 830,000 barrels per day” (Parfomak, Pirog, Luther and Vann 4). The construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline would strengthen the United States economy, provide energy security and have minimal environmental impact. “The Keystone XL project would create $1.1 trillion in private capital investment at no
Nicolas D. Loris, who is an economist at the Heritage Foundation, claims fracking helps create new jobs “for geologists, engineers, rig workers, truck drivers, and pipe welders”—such as a plant located in Pennsylvania that will generate about 10,000 new jobs—and also helps create more business for hotels and restaurants (“Fracking is not a Public Health Risk,” Chemicals). Using this method of wastewater injections, says Loris, also generates over “600 trillion cubic feet of natural gas… [which] is enough heat to 15 million homes for one year” (“Fracking is not a Public Health Risk, Chemicals). He continues his argument by saying that, with the creation of new jobs, hydraulic fracking increases the U.S. economy and makes natural gas available for vital things such as food processing, pharmaceuticals, and fertilizers (“Fracking is not a Public Health Risk,”
Fracking: Should It Stop? In 2007, a home in Ohio received an unpleasant surprise when, after turning on the sink, an explosion ensued (Beaver 128). What caused this explosion?
Researchers have “requested data from Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, and Texas, all states heavily involved in the recent surge of oil and gas drilling, about complaints related to hydraulic fracking for oil and gas” for their research on fracking (Dechert). The research collected was shocking, over 2,000 complaints in Texas alone and several cases on well water contamination within the states mentioned in Decherd’s article. People need to be alerted about how real fracking is and the damages it is doing. These complaints and cases should be a wakeup call to the world and say that we should put it to a
Since the United States will be getting their own natural gases from fracking then that means the “United States will not have to buy and import natural gases from other countries, saving money in the process” (Rogowsky) therefore the “United States will become more independent and not rely on other countries” (Rogowsky). This is important because the people of the United States will also be able to save money because “the gas prices for cars will go down significantly as the gas supply goes up” (Rogowsky). Not only this, but the prices for medicine are sure to decline as well, “natural gases are an important chemical feedstock in some packaging medicine” (Rogowsky). With fracking, the medicine prices will take a dive also resulting in the American people saving money. With the increase of fracking there will be a higher supply of gas and medicine, which makes the prices decrease and people will save