Fracking is a term used to describe hydraulic fracturing, a process of removing oil and natural gas from over a mile beneath the earth’s surface. This process has been used for the past half a century and involves tapping into tough rock formations to access the oil and natural gas below. Wells are dug and then a mixture of sand, chemicals, and water is pumped at high pressure into the wells in order to bring the oil and natural gas to the surface. The use of hydraulic fracturing, if increased over the next decade, could lead to the United States being a top oil producer. Currently, it is assumed that hydraulic fracturing practices will continue to grow over the next several decades. This could help increase energy independence in the United States, but at what cost?
Fracking has many negative impacts on both the environment as well as human health and wellbeing. The hydraulic fracturing process produces around 300,000 barrels of natural gas a day, but also requires about 1-8 million gallons of water to complete each fracking job. This precious, and limited, resource is combined with various additives and chemicals. Though it isn’t always clear what is being added, mercury, radium, methanol, and formaldehyde, are all commonly used thus making the water unfit for human consumption. Most of this contaminated water is left behind after a fracking job is finished. This excess can leach out into the soil and surrounding groundwater polluting drinking water in the area. There are hundreds of cases of contaminated drinking water linked to fracking. The removal of large quantities of gas and oil can lead to a shift in the earth’s surface causing small-scale earthquakes to occur affecting surrounding communities. Ironically, a significant amount of fossil fuel is needed to transport the oil and natural gas, as well as the water and supplies used in the fracking processes, thus increasing the emissions of the whole process. These are just a few of the main issues with the fracking process that affect people and the environment and it is clear that the impacts of this process are disproportionately negative.
Though her opinion has become muddy since the start of the presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton supports fracking. Yet, she claims that it needs to be regulated so to reduce damage to the environment, and believes that ‘safe’ fracking is a possibility, though this seems unlikely given the use of chemicals and continued issues with drinking water. Still, the hydraulic fracturing industry remains highly unregulated by the government and continues to be exempt from the Safe Drinking Water Act. As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton strongly supported and advocated for the use of fracking in other countries. Her influence in Bulgaria, leading to a deal with Chevron, prompted numerous protests from the Bulgarian people against fracking. Clinton says that “gas is cleaner than coal,” but does she realize how harmful gas extraction is and that other green energies like wind and solar also exist?
Since the beginning of the presidential campaign, Clinton has avoided the topic of fracking, but her past record remains. She just recently, after years of avoiding taking a position, finally declared she opposed the Keystone XL Pipeline extension, a pipeline that would transport oil through multiple states. It is baffling, that as a progressive, Clinton could not take a stance on a pipeline that would have had such negative environmental impacts and was so opposed by the people it would have affected. It seems too coincidental that she has the support from campaign donors such as fossil fuel investor Franklin Square Capital Investors, as well as the oil giant Chevron and chooses to withhold opinions on fossil fuel decisions. What is ironic here is a democrat, who claims to be a progressive, stands up to encourage the practice of fracking, even though it is leading to climate change and impacting human health directly. She will simply tack on at the end of her argument that it should be more regulated - is this truly progressive thought? The risk is simply too high, and this process only further feeds our obsession with, and reliance on, fossil fuels, rather than trying to fund or work towards using clean renewable energy that has minimal negative impact on the environment and human health. We need to move past this reliance on oil and our increased reliance on natural gas, as a ‘progressive’ presidential candidate, Clinton should realize this. It is time to stop supporting practices that ravage and damage our planet, and investment in clean energy practices is long overdue. Climate change is an urgent issue, and it requires immediate action and cooperation from the people, the corporations, and the government.
This month, people are gathering around the world to protest fossil fuels. This movement, Break Free from Fossil Fuels, is organizing events and protests in a dozen or so countries. Get involved or find out if there is an event near you on their website. This is an important moment to make our voices heard and to practice civil disobedience. You can also watch the film about civil disobedience and the Break Free movement.
For more information about Fracking please visit:
EARTHWORKS
Dangers of Fracking
Water Contamination from Fracking
For an uplifting film about a community response to fracking check out the short film “Dryden - The Small Town that Changed the Fracking Game”.
Take a look at On the Issues for full information on where Hillary Clinton stands on specific issues.