http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/10/study-fracking-natural-gas-climate-change

In this article discussing the value of fracking, Tim McDonnell highlights the uselessness of fracking as a climate solution. Even though fracking promotes the use of natural gas instead of other energy sources such as coal, it adds to the carbon pollution that our nation has long been taking part in relentlessly. The author concludes that without certain policies that steer us closer to the use of low-carbon sources, the reliance on fracking as a more environmental-friendly energy source is a lie that will keep us from seeking out sources that substantially reduces our carbon output.

Within this article, McDonnell puts forth two assumptions before procuring support for his argument: he reminds us that the US is still in between using both coal and natural gas as sources of energy, but the data he presents compares an ideal state in which the US solely uses natural gas and the absence of such a revolution. Along with this, McDonnell assumes in his data that there will be no new policy change in regards to energy usage till 2050.

As evidence, McDonnell includes the research of five different teams of scientists who predicted the amount of global gas consumption, CO2 emissions from fossil fuels, total radiative forcing, and temperature change from 2010 to 2050. The overarching result reached by all the groups warns us that the global temperature will rise 2° Celsius by 2050. This gives support to the author’s argument that unless policies are made to limit the use fracking, there will be no difference in the harmful results caused by coal and natural gas. Although natural gas leaves a smaller carbon footprint than coal, it still doesn’t compare to the more environmental-friendly sources of energy such as wind or solar power.

When I read the first part of this article, it seemed that the author was strongly and fully biased against the fracking phenomenon, but towards the end of the article, he recognized that the use of natural gas instead of coal has reduced the number of deaths due to outdoor air pollution. Additionally, the author recognizes that gas is a more dependable source of energy when compared to solar and wind energy. This allows the reader to see that there are some benefits in changing our energy source from coal to the cleaner and reliable source of gas. However, the author’s general language throughout the article, such as “fracking alone won’t save us” and “fracking doesn’t work as a climate solution” strongly conveys his stance on this issue. It did not seem as if the evidence for both sides were balanced—the placement of the support of fracking at the end of the article deems it as almost unimportant –like an afterthought that one simply regards as negligible. Furthermore, the author fails to bring up statistical data to support fracking as a viable climate solution. This also indicates that there is definitely a bias to the author’s argument.

The author’s conclusions, which confirm that new policy changes must be made in regards to the use of natural gas as the main source of energy, draw the readers’ attention to the other possible sources of energy that leave a small carbon footprint—such as wind and solar energy. He urges the continuous pursuit of cleaner, more renewable resources rather than settling for a source that is in few senses better than older sources (i.e. coal). This implies that the US has an intrinsic responsibility to continually consider and invest in more environmentally favorable resources. We cannot be stagnant.