Hydraulic fracturing, otherwise known as fracking, is a means to extract natural gas from underneath the earth. In order to extract natural gas, holes are drilled deep into the ground and then pressurized fluid is pumped through the holes which fractures the rock. The fractures allow gas to escape which is subsequently harvested for energy. This process however can lead to water pollution, environmental degradation, poor air quality, and health ailments.
The focus of this article is on the disproportionate share of environmental and health risks for the poor, "country" folk whose communities are targeted by fracking companies. The government is allowing companies to continue fracking because of racialized politics and prejudice against certain races and classes.
I found this article to be intriguing because 1) I did not know fracking was an environmental problem and 2) it is clear that environmental injustice is occurring because certain groups are being targeted by energy companies. Fracking presents an interesting area for discussion, because one could argue that it is a greener way of obtaining energy since it utilizes natural gas. This lessens our dependence on oil and could impact our position in the global energy market. In light of the health risks however, it appears that this process needs to be reevaluated to protect the livelihoods of the individuals living near fracking sites.
What are your thoughts on the issue? Is the government turning a blind eye to the ramifications of this process? Should the communities receive monetary compensation if their water supply has been contaminated? Do the "benefits" of fracking (green energy, cheaper electricity, improved energy security) outweigh the negative impacts?
I recently became aware of fracking this past fall, when several fracking projects started in Ohio (where I'm from). The practice has caused quite a bit of controversy as the fracking companies try to deny that the earthquakes and contaminated water that started occurring at the same time as these projects are related. These projects are beginning to affect the welfare of the people who live in these rural areas, and I would say that this would justify compensation.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I don't know if I would say that compensation would bring justice. Contaminating water sources is a very serious matter for the people and the environment, especially with water scarcity becoming a more prominent issue. These are crimes, and it is frustrating that big energy companies are able to get away with the equivalent of paying fines, if they are held accountable at all.
At least the case in Ohio, politicians continue to support these projects, toting the benefits of supplying cleaner energy and providing jobs for regions with high unemployment. But I would argue that these benefits do not last and are not worth the cost. While these projects provide jobs now, in 10 or 20 years when the sites are depleted, people will be left without jobs once again. Instead of investing in "cleaner" energy that still comes at an environmental cost, why don't we invest in clean sources that will be around for a long time?
Fracking seems come with a lot of environmental risks. While the article above seems a bit extreme (I doubt how commonplace tap water fires actually are...), fracking could jeopardize air and water safety, and is linking to greenhouse gas emissions and earthquakes. However, companies that engage in fracking have also passed groundwater contamination tests and other regulation requirements.
ReplyDeleteSo, are the risks being blown out of proportion? Are the regulation requirements not stringent enough? I'm not sure what to think. It might be appropriate to use the precautionary principle. If there is a consensus that there may be negative repercussions, could the rush to extract oil from shale be slowed?