By Brittany Ryan
Of all
environmental issues, hydraulic fracturing is one that I am most concerned
with. The process encompasses all angles of environmental and social
negligence—from water contamination to regulatory loopholes and prevention of
public disclosure. Yet, it continues to grow exponentially, with nuclear plants
being dismantled as natural gas conquers the United States energy industry.
Often,
arguments of becoming more energy independent and protecting ourselves from
potential wars with the Middle East are tossed
around to sound like urgent measures to address national security. But almost
40 percent of America’s oil needs come from domestic supply, and another 35
percent is imported from Latin America and Canada. Gas companies continuously
make false promises of securing our nation’s energy independence, but they have
already submitted 19 proposals to the DOE to export liquefied natural gas. Nonetheless,
production rates continue to decline as consumption rates catapult. Studies
report that we only have 50 years worth of natural gas, and that’s assuming we
are able to extract every possible reserve. Is 50 years worth threatening our
resources? Instead of worsening our addiction, efforts should be made to
increase efficiency, reduce consumption, and effectively transition to
renewable resources.
Other
questions largely overlooked should be granted significant attention. A myriad
of cases of water contamination has been reported near extraction sites,
transforming local residents’ well-water to a murky mixture, unsuitable for
drinking or even bathing. Some of the chemicals used to break up the natural
gas are the same we find in embalming fluid, gasoline that runs our vehicles,
and detergents that wash our clothes. Numerous cases, predominantly in
Pennsylvania, of families reporting brain lesions, membrane damage, migraines
and the like all were located near a gas-drilling location. Additionally, there
has yet to be full disclosure of all the chemicals used in the fluid and this
remains unknown because the industry refuses to permit government testing. If
the natural gas industry is so confident that fracking fluid poses low risks to
human health, EPA testing and public disclosure of the results should not be a
problem.
And how are
these major oil and gas companies, such as leading supplier Halliburton Co.,
getting away with all of this? It could be because President Bush signed the
Energy Policy Act of 2005, which contained a small provision with an
astronomical impact. The component exempted natural gas fluids from regulation
under the Safe Drinking Water Act, Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act and CERCLA.
This waiver is frequently referred to as the “Halliburton Loophole” because
former CEO of Halliburton, Vice President Dick Cheney, was a powerful
proponent.
Did I
mention air pollution, land fragmentation, noise pollution, wastewater
displacement, greenhouse emissions and declines in animal populations? The list
of environmental and social impacts could go on and on. Relying on such a risky
process seems unintelligible, especially when considering the availability of
alternative resources. Critics claim wind and solar energy are just not
technologically efficient enough and too costly. Yet fracking is efficient and
not costly? Each well can use from 50,000 to 10 million gallons of water for
the process, meaning these barrels of water are transported by truck, requiring
oil, to be contaminated to a point beyond filtration. A valuable and diminishing
resource is being wasted for the harmful extraction of a finite resource. The
cost of gas-drilling extends far beyond monetary limits; individuals should
prioritize human and environmental health over economic gain. What good is
cheap energy if we can’t even drink our water?
Furthermore,
technology is a catalyst of itself; with increased innovation comes
improvement, and that has proven true for all technologies. The first computer
ever created was not efficient either, but the world has come a long, long way
since then at an exponential rate. Investing in a clean, safe, and
environmentally sound technology seems worth the cost to avoid yet another
destructive process that destroys the sole entity that keeps us alive – the
Earth.
No comments:
Post a Comment