USA Today
Monday, April 18, 2016
Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders has made
opposition to fracking a key part of his campaign in Tuesday’s primary in New
York, which along with Vermont has banned the controversial process of
producing oil and natural gas by cracking open rock formations with a
high-pressure mix of water, sand and chemicals.
The campaign trail is unfriendly to nuance, and the
argument over hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, is a prime example of a
complex issue that gets oversimplified. When rival Hillary Clinton answered a
debate question by listing the various ways she would regulate fracking,
Sanders said: “My answer is a lot shorter. No, I do not support fracking.”
Voters deserve a more thoughtful answer. Fracking has
gone from an exotic drilling technique to a commonplace procedure that has
spurred a remarkable U.S. energy boom and now produces about half of
all U.S. oil and gas.
This boom has created jobs, boosted domestic manufacturing and brought the USA
closer to energy independence.
Moreover, natural gas from fracking has displaced coal as
a primary producer of electricity, significantly reducing U.S. greenhouse gas
emissions. Giving up fracking, as Sanders demands, would have enormous costs.
Is it worth it?
In this case there is a simple answer: No.
The case against fracking rests on two criticisms. One is
that the nation should be using less oil and gas, and more renewables such as
solar and wind. Second, fracking is supposedly
so dangerous and destructive that no amount of regulation can make it
safe. Both of these objections are weak.
Solar and wind represent America's energy future, but
right now they supply just 2.4% of the
nation’s energy needs. It will take years for better and cleaner energy
sources to displace the oil and gas that fuel the nation’s quarter of a billion
vehicles, provide about a third of its electricity, and heat homes and
commercial buildings.
Giving up fracking in the belief that solar and wind can
easily take over is like shooting yourself in the foot because you believe you
can fly. A carbon tax would make renewables more competitive with fossil fuels.
But it’s so much easier to say, “No fracking.”
The idea that fracking is too dangerous ignores science
and the experience of tens of thousands of fracked wells. A landmark
Environmental Protection Agency study last year found some cases of groundwater
contamination from fracking, but no evidence of widespread problems — proof
that fracking can be done safely. Fracked or not, any oil or gas well can leak
contaminants into groundwater if the well is handled poorly, but safe drilling
methods have been widely understood and used for decades.
What about methane leaks from gas wells, a potentially
significant greenhouse gas problem that can offset natural gas’ advantage over
coal? Careful regulation and tight connections will minimize leaks, many of
which come from an identifiable subset of rogue operations.
As with any energy production, fracking comes with cost
and inconvenience. Drilling booms in parts of the country unused to the
associated noise, smells and traffic can rattle homeowners, as can minor
earthquakes triggered by re-injection of wastewater. Just because drillers can
site a well right next to a property line doesn’t mean authorities should let
them do that.
Aggressive regulation and research of drilling practices
and quality-of-life issues can ensure that fracking’s benefits outweigh the
costs. So far, at least, the sort of destructive impacts that Bernie Sanders
and other critics claim to have found seem exaggerated or non-existent.
No comments:
Post a Comment