The Fracking Truth, By Chris Faulkner
In “The Fracking Truth,” Chris Faulkner argues that fracking has almost no consequences. Perhaps the strongest argument that Faulkner gives for this claim relies on three claims that (1) subsurface contamination from fracking is almost impossible, (2) low concentrations of any harmful chemicals used in fracking would be negligible and (3) earthquake activity caused by fracking are nearly moderate to small. In this paper, I will argue that this argument fails because there are many consequences of fracking and thus, still poses a real threat to the people and the environment. According to Faulkner, hydraulic fracturing—commonly known as “fracking”—is “a process that enables the extraction of previous intractable [mysterious] natural gas and
…show more content…
Despite the financial benefits brought by hydraulic fracturing, the consequences are far too dangerous to be unconsidered. According to Karnes County Judge Barbara Shaw, while fracturing has helped the country’s current financial problems, the fracturing also created two more problems in the said area: form of dangerous highways and destruction of roads by heavy equipment. In public health, they are worried about the untested long- term results on the people living the near fracturing sites due to the contamination of water and air by fracturing chemicals. According to Michael Kelly, fracking is “essentially an experiment.” There are so many unknowns that pose threat on the health of the people, and fracking is being conducted right now without the permission of the people who are most likely to be hurt by it. In the end, hydraulic fracturing produces approximately 300 000 barrels of natural gas and oil a day, but at the price of numerous environment, safety and health consequences. Don’t think it is worth it. In conclusion, I have argued that there are many consequences of fracking and thus, still pose a real threat to the people and the environment. I do commend Faulkner’s closing sentence, “there’s almost no downside [to fracking].” I do agree, ALMOST no downside, except for what it is doing to our air, water, land, communities and health and turning us all into necessary
Despite the financial benefits brought by hydraulic fracturing, the consequences are far too dangerous to be unconsidered. According to Karnes County Judge Barbara Shaw, while fracturing has helped the country’s current financial problems, the fracturing also created two more problems in the said area: form of dangerous highways and destruction of roads by heavy equipment. In public health, they are worried about the untested long- term results on the people living the near fracturing sites due to the contamination of water and air by fracturing chemicals. According to Michael Kelly, fracking is “essentially an experiment.” There are so many unknowns that pose threat on the health of the people, and fracking is being conducted right now without the permission of the people who are most likely to be hurt by it. In the end, hydraulic fracturing produces approximately 300 000 barrels of natural gas and oil a day, but at the price of numerous environment, safety and health consequences. Don’t think it is worth it. In conclusion, I have argued that there are many consequences of fracking and thus, still pose a real threat to the people and the environment. I do commend Faulkner’s closing sentence, “there’s almost no downside [to fracking].” I do agree, ALMOST no downside, except for what it is doing to our air, water, land, communities and health and turning us all into necessary