Apr
16
Blog Post #15 / Class #21
April 16, 2015 | Leave a Comment
I think it is funny how people can so easily overlook long term repercussions for short term satisfaction. Gregory Zuckerman’s comments in the American Enterprise Institute completely rubbed me the wrong way. This boom in fracking is not due to this so called American entrepreneurial spirit. It is due to less government regulation and people’s recklessness in trying to earn the fastest profits in the shortest amount of time. The consequences of fracking are not concrete and while many use that as the justification to continue it, I think that makes it even riskier. We don’t know what will happen if we continue but chances are when you mess with mother nature, nothing good. Zuckerman calls for “years of trial and error necessary for shale breakthroughs” and all the time I’m thinking, you’re drilling into the Earth and releasing potentially dangerous gasses with no concrete plan? Just trial and error and see what happens? Less government regulation in shale gas isn’t a good thing. We need to emulate other countries in expressing more caution.
Zuckerman also notes that we should embrace income inequality because now smaller towns are experiencing a rebirth due to shale gas due to that incentive. While I believe that income inequality has played a part in smaller towns embracing fracking wholeheartedly, I wouldn’t associate income inequality with such a positive connotation of incentive. I feel like it’s more similar to a heavy burden that led those affected by it to resort to other means to bridge that gap. Zuckerman is right when he says that there is “a strong desire to get really wealthy” within the USA. That’s the American Dream that’s still alive and well. Everybody’s waiting for the day they get rich. But it’s a dream that has had wreaked havoc in the environment in our country and fracking seems like history repeating itself.
The article in Mother Jones supports Zuckerman’s statements of revitalized small towns due to fracking. I found it surprising that social mobility increased in places where education is hardly substantial. The article stated, “more than two-thirds of North Dakota public schools failed to meet federal standards this year” and yet they experienced more than 30% chance of social mobility. We’ve pointed time and time again that education has been one of the best ways to bridge inequality but it seems as if the success of shale gas has had more benefits.
At the end of the article, however, the author brings up a good point: Fracking is in it’s boom-time. All this talk about fracking made me overlook the fact that it isn’t just because it’s a new process, it’s also because fracking is in it’s most prosperous stage. But with all good things, it must come to an end. What happens when this boom dies down? When OPEC and the volatile energy industry twists things around? I’m thinking about those North Dakota towns. Short term success shows fantastic progresses in mobility. But long-term? I’d say it’s more far-fetched. After the boom dies down, there will be nothing else for those towns to rely on.
The last article really put the damages of Sandy into perspective. I found it hard to believe that people were still suffering from it even after almost 3 years. The article stated, “According to a survey of nearly 500 NYCHA residents, 55% had repair needs in their dwellings before Sandy, 40% developed new needs because of Sandy, and 62% were told they would have to wait six months or more for repairs.” Sandy may have damaged people’s homes but income inequality has affected who of those people gets the resources to repair those homes. But then I realize it’s always been like that. Income inequality has spurred environmental inequality. Who tends to get exposure to harmful hazards? Poor communities. Who tends to get a say in what happens in their environment? Not those poor communities.
Stella Kong
