Apr
16
Fracking affects everyone and should be a concern to everyone whether you are a child, parent, poor or rich. Those who live in the area where the fracking is being done can feel the largest impact of the process. Despite the poor reputation of fracking, an analysis of it reveals that it can bring benefits to society, while also harming it. The question is, do the benefits outweigh the costs?
Fracking is an example of innovation and the freedom to innovate is important to inspire and move a country forward. Mark J. Perry argues that this is reason enough to except one of the most prominent tradeoffs – income inequality. In other words, we should accept the fact that some people are able to prosper at the cost of many people suffering. It’s true that without this ability and freedom to innovate, citizens will less likely invest in new technologies, and there will be less advancement in society. However, instead of encouraging any type of innovation, society should be motivated to innovate for the better instead of quick profits. The efforts put into fracking could be put into areas such as renewable energy. It seems that fracking is the attractive route because it’s easier, rather than innovative, and therefore whether or not fracking is innovative is questionable.
Areas that have fracking activity experience a surge in their economy. Fracking employs more employees, and therefore more money is circulated in the local economy. This in turns allows for more funding to go into schools and other resources, which in turn encourages upward mobility amongst those in the area. Those with fracking activity seem to the largest increases in upward mobility from the lower end to the higher end. However, as Kate Sheppard mentions in her article, this is only a short-term benefit. The economic boom from fracking is just a boom and the benefits can disappear at any minute whether it is from depletion or a disaster that prevents further fracking activity. Society at large should be more concerned about long-term economic stability and mobility. We can focus on the fact that less than one percent move up because of this or create plans to move a greater number and make society more equal.
Even more important, is the environmental strain fracking puts on the planet. This activity contaminates the water and harms the health of people nearby. It kills the quality of life and requires large amounts of land that can be used for other activities. Wildlife is interrupted and harmed. The planet that the future generations inherit may not be livable space and by then technology may not even be a solution to fix it. The chemicals being released have unknown consequences, and people who are not involved in the decision-making should not have to suffer for the choices of the rich.
Fracking activity is not an innovation as it is argued to be. Yes, it provides jobs and is a new way to gather energy, but it does not advance the society forward in the long run economically and technologically. It’s ability to spur economic mobility is only short lived and causes communities to be heavily reliant on one source of revenue. Once it leaves, communities will be left to scramble and find a new source of revenue. The largest cost is the irreversible harm to the environment that future generations will inherit and force to live on. They had no input on how the planet should be used and should not have to suffer for the mistakes of our generation.
