Fracking Research Paper

To what extent should we sacrifice the environment to become energy independent?
Today in America, fracking has become a popular mean to extract oil and gas as a new technology, but unfortunately the process poses as a controversial issue throughout the country. Various issues are debated upon the topic as some say it is a better source of alternative fuel, while others argue that hydraulic fracturing, also referred to as fracking, is detrimental to citizens’ health and the environment. Altogether, we should banned the new technology of fracking before it provides long term, detrimental damage -- economic, environmental, and health-wise. There would be minimal impact if we were to stop fracking where we are now as the risks to our health and

When talking about the economics of fracking, we must analyze the costs and benefits. According to a Costs of Fracking report, billions of dollars have been used to cover the damages of the drilling. For example, “In Pennsylvania's last extractive boom, the state was stuck with a $5 billion bill to clean up pollution from abandoned mines. What happens when the fracking book is long gone and communities are stuck with the bill?” as said in an article by Tufts Now. The damage done by the machinery and work -- such as road damage from transporting materials, earthquakes, pollution, etc. -- involved in the process of fracking’s cost of production is far more than the benefits of the short term costs and revenue from the industry. Essentially, the costs outweigh the benefits. We should put monetary value on the environment so it is included in the economic system. In an article from Herinst, which discusses the economics and environment issues of fracking, states, “Cost-benefit analysis or CBA is one of the key ways in

The environment, in which fracturing sites are located, go from clean landscapes to factory wastelands. Bruce McKenzie Everett, a professor of international business at the Fletcher School, states that “There are air pollution problems and earthquakes from the deep-well injections of the wastewater into the gas-producing shale, as well as significant global warming emissions.” On a superficial level, this obviously shows that fracking aids the deterioration of the environment, but will also leave lasting effects on the land and the people residing in it; earthquakes do not make for safe surroundings and air pollution leads to external bodily irritations and possible respiratory disease -- these all contribute to the list of negative externalities. A primary dispute over the allowance of fracking is its water contamination. An article by Think Process states, “Scientists have found elevated levels of cancer-causing chemicals in the drinking water in North Texas’ Barnett Shale region — where a fracking boom has sprouted more than 20,000 oil and gas wells…. also associated with effects on the respiratory and central nervous system.” If cancer is a side effect from the water contamination, then what makes anyone’s life less valuable than the benefits and profits earned from fracking’s environmental effects? The cost of a life is invaluable compared to the slight sum