Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why Anti-Fracking Environmentalists Are Holding Back the U.S.
Reason ^ | March 13, 2013 | John Stossel

Posted on 03/13/2013 9:21:10 PM PDT by neverdem

The real story on fracking, say scientists, is that the risks are small and the rewards immense.

Celebrities are now upset about fracking, the injection of chemicals into the ground to crack rocks to release oil and gas. With everyone saying they want alternatives to foreign oil, I'd think celebrities would love fracking.

I'd be wrong. Lady Gaga, Yoko Ono and their group, Artists Against Fracking, don't feel the love. Yoko sang, "Don't frack me!" on TV.

Stopping fracking is the latest cause of the silly people. They succeeded in getting scientifically ignorant politicians to ban fracking in New York, Maryland and Vermont.

Hollywood gave an Oscar to "Gasland," a documentary that suggests fracking will shove gas into some people's drinking water, so the water will burn. It's true that some water contains so much natural gas that you can light it.

But another documentary, "FrackNation," shows that gas got into plumbing long before fracking came. There's gas in the earth. That's why it's called "natural gas." Some gets into well water. Environmental officials investigated the flames shown in "Gasland" and concluded that the pollution had nothing to do with fracking.

"FrackNation" director Phelim McAleer tried to confront "Gasland" director Josh Fox about this, but Fox wouldn't answer his questions. Instead, he demanded to know whom McAleer works for. He also turned down my invitations to publicly debate fracking. Many activists don't like to answer questions that don't fit their narrative.

Even some homeowners who filed a lawsuit claiming that their water was poisoned by fracking weren't happy to learn that their water is safe. I'd think they would be delighted, but "FrackNation" shows a couple reacting with outrage when environmental officials test their water and find it clean.

The real story on fracking, say scientists, is that the risks are small and the rewards immense. Fracking lowered the price of natural gas so much that Americans heat our homes for less, and manufacturing that once left America has returned. For those concerned about global warming, burning gas instead of oil or coal reduces CO2 emissions.

"Skeptical Environmentalist" author Bjorn Lomborg points out that "green" Europe promised to reduce emissions, but "only managed to cut half of what you guys accidentally happened to do when you stumbled on fracking."

Still, the process sounds dangerous. It requires chemicals and explosions. So fracking is now scapegoated for the usual litany of things that peasants feared when threatened with curses centuries ago: livestock dying, bad crop yields, children born with deformities.

None of it is backed by scientific evidence. Even environmentalists who usually are too cautious (by my standards) see little danger. President Obama's first EPA administrator, Lisa Jackson, told Congress that the EPA cannot show "that the fracking process has caused chemicals to enter groundwater."

One of the more outlandish fears is that fracking will cause earthquakes. Silly people at MSNBC say fracking creates "a skyrocketing number of earthquakes." Yes, cracking rocks does cause vibrations. But then, so does construction with dynamite or jackhammers -- not to mention trucks on the highway.

Time and again, as humans make a good-faith effort to find new, cleaner ways to produce the energy a growing population needs, environmentalists find a reason -- often very small or non-existent -- that makes the new method unacceptable.

They say coal is dirty and normal oil production might overheat the planet. Hydroelectric dams kill fish. Nuclear plants could suffer meltdowns. Windmills kill birds.

Some won't be happy unless we go back to what we did before industrialization: burn lots of trees and die young.

Nothing is completely risk-free. Companies make mistakes. Chemical spills happen.

But those risks are manageable. They are also far preferable to the risk of paying more for energy -- thereby killing opportunities for the poor.

So far, most regulators outside New York, Maryland and Vermont have ignored the silly people. So thanks to fracking, Americans pay less for heat (and everything else), the economy is helped, new jobs get created, we create less greenhouse gas, and for the first time since the 19th century, America may become a net exporter of energy.

Good things happen if the silly people can't convince all politicians to ban progress.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Editorial; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: energy; fracking; naturalgas; oil
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-42 last
To: neverdem

Good piece by Stossel. The enviros goal is to basically shut down all production. They hate capitalism and this is their way to stop it.


41 posted on 03/14/2013 1:24:34 PM PDT by Wyatt's Torch (I can explain it to you. I can't understand it for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Various levels of gubmint are trying to demand disclosure of fracking fluid ingredients.

Yep, and those are every bit as proprietary as the KFC recipe or the formula for Coca-Cola.

Technically, dihydrogen monoxide is a chemical, so is glucose, so is oxygen, but humans aren't going anywhere without any of those, and too much can kill you.

The thing about fracking is that those chemicals are supposed to be and remain sequestered from potable water aquifers. Ordinarily, that is done as a matter of course, provided the well construction is correct and no one spills any on the ground.

In the event of a mishap, the chemicals involved should be available to anyone doing the cleanup or remediation. Publishing them wholesale, though would be like asking the above mentioned commercial ventures to release their recipes--something the particular company has expended a lot of research time and money on would be made available to their competitors, gratis.

(No wonder there is resistance to just ponying up a list.)

It isn't some huge conspiracy, because those chemicals will only see the light of day again (if ever--some break down in the wellbore) as a component of production fluid, either refined, or disposed of in injection wells far below aquifers which people get drinking water from.

42 posted on 03/14/2013 9:03:20 PM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-42 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson