Analysis Of Natural Gas Fracking Addresses All Of Our Major Problems

Academic Analysis: “Natural Gas Fracking Addresses All of Our Major Problems”

In his essay, “Natural Gas Fracking Addresses All of our Major Problems,” Richard Pierce argues that by using horizontal drilling and fracturing of shale formations to obtain natural gas will solve many of our nation’s issues. He cites that by accessing our abundant supply of natural gas, the economy, environment, and geopolitical conditions will improve. He backs these claims by listing examples of recently discovered natural gas basins in the United States and abroad and by showing that the current gas supply has put downward pressure on oil prices. Lower oil prices make many products more affordable and improve the global economy. He posits that by switching

Another benefit from switching to clean-burning natural gas is a decrease in pollutants in the air, which will decrease airborne illnesses and premature deaths. He discusses the impact of energy independence for countries that rely on insecure regions for their energy needs. For example, the U.S. will rely less on the Middle East, Europe will rely less on Russia and India will rely less on Iran. By presenting fracking as the answer to the world’s problems, Pierce counters the arguments of critics who cite the environmental problems of fracking. His paper is one-sided because he leaves out the other side of the debate by ignoring any negative aspects of fracking. His tools for persuasion include implying ideas with strategic word choice, contrasting dire world problems with hopeful

He explicitly states that fracking to obtain natural gas has the potential to solve all of the world’s major problems. Since the essay relies on statistics and is published in “Scholarly Commons” of the George Washington University Law School, his paper seems academic. However, with multiple readings, it seems persuasive because it highlights the benefits of natural gas without giving any space to possible environmental impacts. Because fracking is divisive, it is telling that the essay provides only one side of the debate. In his introduction, he states that “my purpose in this article is just to describe the incredibly high stakes in the fracking debate by outlining the potential beneficial effects of fracking” (Pierce 3). This explanation, while wonderfully honest, only stimulates other questions. Why does he choose to present only the benefits of fracking? The statistics of his article are intriguing. He appears to understand the political, economic and environmental workings of the world, so why not present a bigger picture of the issue? The advantages that he presents are remarkable and it would be interesting to see the other side of the debate through his eyes.

The moment of the piece provides an answer to why he only chooses to present fracking’s benefits. The piece was written four years ago. When researching the pros and cons of fracking, most of the articles and websites are written before that time