Apr
1
Class #19 / Blog Post #13 – Stella Kong
April 1, 2015 | Leave a Comment
Three summers ago, two of my friends earned hundreds of dollars in a few weeks because of fracking. This wasn’t because they both had a stake with drilling companies but the complete opposite. They worked for an environmentalist group that was petitioning to stop fracking in New York State. For every thirty or so signature my friends got from people on the street, they received a generous compensation.
Knowing this piece of information puts the New York Times article in a different perspective. While I was initially glad that Governor Cuomo banned fracking, I realized that this may have less to do with environmental concerns and more to do with politics. Such a generous amount of money given to lackadaisical high school students who couldn’t care less about fracking, shows how strong those fracking protestors and environmentalist groups are. This may still be a good thing as I do agree that embracing fracking is just delaying the finding of more efficient energy processes but there’s something that irks me about Governor Cuomo banning it mostly because he needs votes in the future. Following a recent close election with an opponent who opposed fracking, Cuomo recognizes the power of environmentalist groups and banning fracking to gets him back in favor with those in his own party. If he truly believed fracking was harmful, he would advocate for further banning in states such as Pennsylvania.
However, I do understand his dilemma. There is no clear and definitive answer to fracking. It is either yes to fracking and yes to other things such as air pollution, water contamination, and other unknown consequences or no to fracking and no to the economic revival of some communities, the freedom from the reliance on foreign sources, and lower gas prices. I think what makes this extra difficult is that there aren’t any definitive scientific studies on the effects of fracking. There is much speculation on the effects and some weak data but nothing entirely comprehensive that allows lawmakers to make a confident decision between the tradeoff.
I think lawmakers in the UK are more cautious than those in the US. While many states in the US embraced fracking quickly without knowing the repercussions, those in the UK are still debating the advantages and disadvantages. Even now, there is no fracking taking place in the UK and people must apply for a license to do so in the future if fracking is allowed. I think this is the path that the US should’ve taken. In the NYT article, Howard Zucker, the man testifying against fracking, had said, “The potential risks are too great. In fact, they are not even fully known.” Who knows, fracking may turn out to be harmless but since there is no definitive evidence, all fracking must be stopped.
Therefore, I believe before we shell out money to companies to drill and potentially destroy our own land, we should direct that money to researching the effects of fracking and discovering other processes for efficient energy. One thing I don’t agree with is Gov. Cuomo’s statement saying “I have no alternative but fracking”. If we invest more in science research, we may be able to find just that, an alternative. Stranger and more miraculous things have happened.
