I have been in The Post multiple times lately regarding “fracking” on Nov. 14 (“Ohio’s potential ‘fracking’ an undesirable future”) and on Nov. 16 (“Student-run campaign focuses on fracking’s potential effects on beer”).
I am not unconditionally against fracking; I am against reckless fracking that is not properly regulated. I see the potential in Ohio’s shale gas. It could create jobs. It could revive some manufacturing industries. But will that last? Or will Appalachia merely be treated as a resource extraction zone as it has been in the past, part of a vicious boom and bust cycle that does nothing to address the underlying causes of its poverty? This is largely what happened with the rise and fall of the coal industry here, and now the streams of local watersheds are running white, green, orange and other colors because of acid mine drainage.
The local people are left to suffer from the health and environmental effects, while the coal industry is long gone, and didn’t pay a dime. I’m worried the same thing could happen with fracking.
Another problem with fracking and natural gas in general is methane leakage.
Many people have called natural gas a “bridge fuel” because each unit, when burned, produces half as much carbon dioxide as coal. However, there are also significant leaks of methane, a greenhouse gas twenty times as potent as CO2, negating most of the benefits of lower global warming pollution. A recent study published in the journal “Environmental Research Letters” found that “technologies that offer only modest reductions in greenhouse gases, such as the use of natural gas and perhaps carbon capture and storage, cannot substantially reduce climate risk in the next 100 years” (http://www.iop.org/news/12/feb/page_53901.html). Climate change is probably the biggest long-term threat to humanity, with projected warming from “business as usual” to be 10 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100 if we don’t significantly change our ways (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/10/14/1009121/science-of-global-warming-impacts-guide/).
And that is just one problem with fracking. There are others, including waste disposal, water pollution and air pollution. Ohio University’s “Institute for Sustainable Energy and the Environment” recently received 2 million dollars to research how to clean fracking wastewater. While burning fossil fuels is not “sustainable” as they are finite, I still support this kind of research because taking care of the waste problem would be a huge positive step for fracking. If the gas companies captured all the methane, cleaned their wastewater for reuse, took steps to mitigate air pollution, and pumped significant amounts of money back into local economies, I would support fracking as a bridge fuel. It would certainly beat burning coal, especially when it comes from mountaintop removal.
The bottom line is this: It’s not just fracking; it’s the burning of all fossil fuels that are contributing to massive environmental destruction. We should be putting all our efforts right now into energy efficiency, conservation, and truly sustainable forms of energy like solar, wind and properly managed biofuels. Think of the future you want for yourself and your children.
Austin Stahl is a sophomore studying journalism at Ohio University and a former writer for The Post.
