Apr
1
Fracking – Tina Jing Ru Shen
April 1, 2015 | Leave a Comment
The two articles from BBC and The New York Times primarily discuss the environmental issue of fracking, and how people have reacted to its use and potential for being an alternative to oil. The two publications rarely spoke of the major effects that fracking can have to residents living nearby fracking sites, and how fracking companies take advantage of residents for their mediocre conditions. So the main question I have is, how is fracking related to income inequality?
I remember watching a documentary about the issue, I believe it was Gasland directed by Josh Fox, which focused on fracking sites especially in West Virginia. The families living near the area were low income, not to say in the middle of nowhere, so they had little say and ability to communicate what they felt about fracking. I distinctly remember a scene where Fox visited a home near the site. One of the residents turned on the water faucet, and held a lighter to the water. The flowing water started blazing fire, which proved that natural gas was leaking from the fracking sites into home water supplies. Additionally, the water was not close-to-clear liquid as we fortunately have in the city. Rather, the water was murky brown to black.
Many of the civilians that Fox interviewed complained that they began getting severe headaches and other unusual symptoms after the fracking companies established themselves in the communities. Surely if they were drinking natural gas infused water and showering in it as well, health problems are bound to occur. In BBC‘s article about fracking, another water-polluting substance would be the carcinogenic chemicals that are used in the process of fracking. Residents living by fracking sites would have higher risks of getting cancers!
The documentary continued to illustrate the severe inequality between civilians and fracking companies when Fox followed a group of residents that went to the court to protest against the presence of the natural gas companies. Their protest was received with no avail, and that highlights the imbalance of powers based on financial, social and political presence. Thankfully, The New York Times article is good news to the progress of restricting fracking. Governor Andrew Cuomo’s ban on fracking in New York State is a major breakthrough, since natural gas companies have had high stakes on our state’s massive natural gas supply.
Fracking is definitely not a feasible alternative for energy resources because it impacts public health in an enormously negative way. The documentary also mentioned that the West Virginians living near the site were not the only ones who have been affected by fracking. Since natural gas and the chemicals that were used to extract the resource have infiltrated into nearby water supplies, the deleterious substances could even contaminate New York’s water. We would all be affected. Also, just to point out the low efficiency of natural gas, this energy source provides much less power than oil. Larger amounts of it is required in order to produce the equivalent amount of power that oil has provided. The process of fracking is extremely dangerous and tedious, so the cost of extracting is high on several levels.
Back when the documentary took place, fracking companies were bullying neighboring residents for their lack of resources to fight them. Hopefully more people, not only those who have already been directly affected, could speak up and stop the development of fracking, which has already led to enormous environmental and health destruction.
