Mar
30
Fracking (Alex Lam)
March 30, 2015 | Leave a Comment
A strong economy and constant economic growth is the main concern and goal for any individual and government. When the economy is not strong and thriving, people become impatient and demand that the government acts. This puts pressure on the politicians to find a quick solution. The quick solutions are often times not sustainable and not well thought out. It may temporarily solve the economic crisis, but it will come back, in addition to new issues. Fracking is only one method that falls into this category, and Governor Cuomo was smart in banning it.
It is likely true that if Cuomo had allowed fracking in New York State, the areas with the new abundance of natural energy to sell would thrive. More jobs would be available, leading to more investments and purchases, leading to more jobs and economic growth and possibly mobility. Embracing this would likely decrease levels of poverty and give Cuomo’s administration a stronger following from the rich, since they will likely be the ones to make use of the land. The cost of gas and oil would decrease and people outside these communities would benefit as well. It definitely seems like a win-win situation.
Looking longer-term, fracking will only hurt the economy. It is not sustainable to rely on natural energy sources for economic growth. While the situation in the state of New York is very different than a developing country, the idea is very similar. Once a new energy source comes along, the economy will experience a downward spiral again and potentially erase any gains that were made. This time, the negative impact to both the environment and health of the community has already been done.
Companies engaged in fracking do not deny the risks of fracking to the environment and health of the communities around them. It can cause earthquakes and contaminate the water and the surrounding areas. People have to deal with more pollution from the use of these gases and risk consuming contaminated water. Let’s clarify people really quick. It is only the poor who have to continue living in the area, not those who are actually investing in the fracking, that have to suffer. The rich can stare from afar. The quality of the land diminishes with the arrival of these frackers who are supposed to help improve lives. Advocates for fracking claim that it is a case-by-case basis. Those who are careful can avoid introducing health complications to the surrounding areas. However, accidents happen. No company can guarantee that no mistakes will be made. In addition, there is no hard data that suggests what will happen to the environment with the continued use of fracking. Most predictions do however point to terrible outcomes.
Rather than sticking to the past, governments should encourage new energy sources that will not harm the environment or the health of people. This will help keep an economy healthy and potentially lower health costs, as less people will be inclined to sicknesses from pollution and contaminants. Alternatively, governments can invest capital into new industries that are not even energy related. To jump-start an economy does not require dramatic, harmful tradeoffs for temporary wealth. The people want constant growth and prosperity, and the government can provide that without fracking. Cuomo completed a great first step by banning fracking in New York.
