Apr
16
The three articles brought up opposing views, but interesting correlation between geographical locations, fracking, and income inequality. In the short run, it creates certain benefits that won’t be sustainable in the long run. Rather than taking advantage of certain situations for profits, there needs to be long-term solutions to energy sources.
The two perspectives that Cohen and Liboiron bring up in “New York’s Two Sandy,” I found interesting. The article mentions, on top of the rebuilding homes that will prevent storms in the short term, the focus should also be on long terms goals such as the economic security issue such as jobs and affordable housing. Being that I’ve volunteered in the rebuilding efforts of Hurricane Sandy, I’ve seen and heard stories of the families’ effect on the storms. For one family, it was rather the second point that was brought up, mortgages and temporary rent that has to be paid on a destroyed home and many kids to accommodate education for. On the other hand, another family who had just a flooded basement, focused on rebuilding the basement.
In Kate Sheppard’s article “Income Inequality and the Fracking Boom,” it demonstrates the correlation between the growing oil industry and upward mobility. However, this creates only a short term solution to income inequality by creating temporary jobs; as in the long term, it won’t be sustainable. Since North Dakota, one of the states that sees a 33.1 percent change of upward mobility for children in the bottom fifth rise to the top fifth, falls short of federal standards in terms of education, it will see lower percentages in the long run. In my opinion, the focus for upward mobility in North Dakota should rather be on improving education as a long term goal in order to upward mobility rather than providing temporary wealth.
On the opposing end, Mark Perry welcomed the idea of income inequality that is brought about by fracking. Rather, as Greg Zuckerman talks about the reasons as to why fracking in the US is successful as opposed to other foreign nations. He claims it is a sign of entrepreneurship still in existence. Perry speaks about the benefits that fracking brings to the US such as more millionaires; however, for others it also brings down the prices of energy, increases jobs and in this case, fracking benefits the ones not making millions as well. I don’t really see it as American entrepreneurship in existence, more than taking advantage of a situation. There are many inventions in the world that benefit the average citizen such as computer apps, but they also don’t harm others and their daily necessities such as clean drinking water. I don’t think it would be effective to compare entrepreneurship and creating computer applications to fracking. Rather than a sign of entrepreneurship, it seems more like of few government regulations on fracking.
Overall, it comes down to the benefits and the costs that fracking brings. Being that I’m against fracking and watching the movie “Gasland” in class made be side to being more against it, I would think the costs definitely do not outweigh the benefits. On the other hand, as brought up in previous articles, it does create temporary jobs and it brings down energy prices, but these outcomes are not long-term effects. In the long term, there needs to be a way to create a renewal energy source.
