Ferguson is definitely right in saying that fracking can be beneficial to our economy. It will most certainly make jobs, and, perhaps more importantly, it will make jobs here in the U.S. rather than overseas. Furthermore, fracking will help out the U.S. economy as well, perhaps combating against our debt. This may be partly due to the fact that, if we can get enough natural gas out of fracking, we can become nearly energy independent from the rest of the world. We will no longer have to buy oil and other resources from other places, allowing us to keep money flowing here at home.Ferguson claims that "most people are still a little bit slow to appreciate just how big [fracking] is." However, other people aren't the only slow ones. Ferguson is certainly appreciating the financial opportunities fracking offers, but he is failing to acknowledge the dangers that fracking causes. If you don't know how fracking works, take a look here (in wonderful info-graphic form for your viewing pleasure!). Basically, fracking is drilling far down through the ground (bypassing aquifers) in order to pump water mixed with various chemicals into the ground to fracture it, allowing the natural gas to escape up the passageway where we can collect it.
So, while fracking may be great economically, it has a slew of environmental issues. First, the drilling. You have to have a drilling site which involves clearing out the area around the drill point. This involves taking down trees, animal habitats and whatnot--not exactly good for the environment, especially since the habitat takes time to reestablish itself once the drilling process is over. Also, there is excess pollution such as exhaust that is left over from the drilling machinery and transportation equipment. Second, aquifer disruption. When drilling through the ground, the drill must pass through underground stores of water. This can cause cracks in the aquifer which may end up leaking some of our water supply. Also, your putting a drill full of chemical water through there. If the chemical water leaks, it gets into our drinking supply. I don't know about all you, but I don't like drinking this stuff. Third, residue chemical water stuffs. In the actual fracturing process, the water that breaks the ground is usually left over in the ground just to stay there. Just leaving chemicals underground is just a bad thing. They can seep into aquifers or other places and generally wreak havoc.For a nice list of pros and cons on the subject click here (in wonderful slide show form for your viewing pleasure yet again!).
So, while there is a clear economic motivation for using hydraulic fracturing, are the costs to the environment are worth it? If not, what other forms of energy would be better to invest in and why? Or, do you agree with Ferguson?
7 comments:
While fracking has significant environmental drawbacks, it is worth noting that it is largely used to harvest natural gases (such as shale gas, methane, and other hydrocarbons). As a fuel, natural gas is significantly cleaner than petroleum or coal. So the net environmental impact of fracking may in fact be less damaging when compared to oil drills and coal mines.
That said, fracking is certainly not a benign source of energy. While it may be important for our economy in the short term, we should certainly be seeking out cleaner and greener fuels and safer harvesting methods in the long run.
Even though natural gas is significantly cleaner than petroleum or coal, I think the net envrionmental impact of fracking is actaully more adverse than that of the former energy sources. This is because fracking uses a huge amount of fresh water and returns all of it into waste water at the end, so all of the heavy metals and other pollutants are introduced to the environment. So at the end, more pollution of the environment was done.
Furthermore,both the amount of water for agriculture uses and the amount of water for drinking are significantly reduced. This is really detrimental to the growing human population across the globe. I think the history professor's view doesn't make sense even in the business' point of view, for if the grwoing population is well-fed, than more people are going to consume their service and product.
As a reuslt, I agree with Andrew that more investment should be made on renewable energy instead of lobbying the officails in DC.
Well, hopefully President Obama will put more effort into environmental progress now that his next term is beginning. And hopefully hydraulic fracturing will be able to do some good for this country. I agree that this can help our economy by creating more jobs for the unemployed, especially since they will be here on our homeland and not somewhere else like China. However, I feel calling this a "golden age" is too optimistic because hydraulic fracturing by itself will suddenly solve all the economic problems that have plagued our country for the past years.
I understand the environmental concerns that people will have because the drilling would destroy many trees and habitats. I also agree that the aquifer disruption and residue chemical water are not ideal consequences. As more and more environmental damage happens each year, we must act quickly to prevent a potential environmental catastrophe in the future.
I personally feel that if hydraulic fracturing can seriously give this country an economic boost than it is worth the environmental damage it causes. If we can revitalize the economy, it could give more money for programs that would work to help the environment and reverse damages done. However, as I said before, this might be too optimistic an idea. I agree with Andrew that it would be in our long-term interest to seek out better alternatives in the form of green energy. Our country should try to become less dependent on fossil fuels.
Looking back, the USA has needed to fuel its industrial power using methods such as oil drilling and coal mining that have had some negative impacts on the environment. As we look toward the future, it is important that we keep a close eye on the environment or we may irreversibly destroy it. As the late Mohandas K. Gandhi said: "There is a sufficiency in the world for man's need but not for man's greed."
Side note: If you're so sorry why did you put that title up in the first place?
To Matthew: Because puns, that's why.
Although it is definitely an improvement from coal and oil, I do not think it is worth investing in natural gas/hydraulic fracturing because because of its environmental consequences.
Natural gas could potentially create jobs and give a boost to our economy, but it doesn't make sense to contaminate our drinking water and risk land subsidence for the sake of creating new jobs.
In addition, it's important to remember that natural gas isn't a renewable energy source-it's still a fossil fuel like coal and oil. Therefore, turning to natural gas as our source of energy is only a temporary solution, as we are going to run out of it one day. Like Andrew said, we should be investing in renewable sources of energy like wind and solar energy for a long-term solution.
I also think it's worth mentioning that natural gas is extremely flammable...
(and nice pun, Preston)
While the economic benefits are very intriguing, I think I lean toward no to fracking. It's just so bad for the environment. It may be cleaner to use, but the pollution that fracking makes definitely outweighs that. I noticed one of the cons said something about a link to earthquakes. I don't know how strong the evidence is for that, but I can imagine that sending deep cracks into the earth makes it less stable. God knows what kind of disastrous effects might happen in the long run. Also, as people have mentioned already, fracking is not renewable. Maybe we can find a good renewable energy source before fracking becomes all that necessary.
Post a Comment