Apr
16
Fracking and Income Inequality – Tina Jing Ru Shen
April 16, 2015 | Leave a Comment
Just like how everything in the world has pros and cons, fracking may reduce unemployment rates in areas that have little economic development, but it entails quite a few environmental and health-related setbacks. It has been proposed that fracking companies spark engaging local economies because it offers jobs to the locals. However, could these jobs be considered decent jobs? In our class, we have discussed quite a lot about minimum wages and working conditions, and how all of that relates to income inequality. So is a job in the fracking industry good enough to promote social mobility? Will fracking reduce or actually facilitate income inequality?
As I was reading Kate Sheppard’s article on how research shows fracking can alleviate income inequality, I was not surprised that an argument for fracking is that it produces jobs for locals. A lot of things can produce jobs for locals, not only natural gas companies. We have seen from Gasland that fracking workers as well as locals living near sites are at risk of severe health problems. In the short term, it may seem that conditions for residents have improved because of how effective the fracking industry sparks a booming local economy. However, if we look at the end point on this “success story,” people who were supposed to benefit from this social and economic mobility will in fact fall back down because of major health costs.
Additionally, I agree with Sheppard’s ending remark that fracking is not the ideal way to boost economy and reduce income inequality because it will only be helpful for a definite period of time. Natural gas is a nonrenewable energy source. So just like oil that we have heavily exploited, if we continue to expand the natural gas industry, we will deplete almost all available resources. When natural gas companies fail, workers will go back to being unemployed, or return to lower-paying jobs, with an addition of cancer-like health problems.
Using natural gas to improve income inequality is a false perception because fracking actually proves that unfair income inequality exists and will continue to exist. Locals living in poor, isolated regions of the United States that happen to be near natural gas exploits are being exploited as well. The documentary mentioned that most fracking workers have no idea what deleterious substances they interact with on a day-to-day basis. Is it okay for these locals to pay a big price on their future health for this proposition to improve income inequality? Natural gas company representatives in the documentary were not even willing to take a sip of the contaminated water, which emphasizes the fact that no one should pay the price of their health for anything. But because the locals are low-income and have little say compared to the large fracking companies, they are taken advantage of.
In addition to the points made in the Cohen’s article about natural disasters and its relationship to revealing income inequality, I agree that renewable energy resources are much better than the predominant fossil fuel energy. Renewable energy is currently not a major player in the energy industry because it is relatively more expensive than nonrenewable energy. But actually, only the implementation process for renewable energies is more expensive. In the long run, renewable energy can help save people a lot of money from energy costs. If we could educate every one, especially those who are low income, that renewable energy as a whole is much more money-saving than fossil fuels, we may be able to transition to a green energy economy. But because large nonrenewable energy companies getting their way through lobbying and who knows what, the less privileged may never know the potential for green energy to save money, improve public health, and create a new form of economy.
