Why Is “Fracking” Such A Swear Word In The US Presidential Race? – CleanTechnica

Sign up for daily news updates from CleanTechnica on email. Or follow us on Google News!

---

Politics is such a nasty game. While the two major US Presidential candidates had many topics about which to debate on Tuesday night, the climate crisis was the one most pressing on many of our minds. Unfortunately, it did not receive the attention it deserved. When the single question about climate was asked near the end of the debate, Kamala Harris and Donald Trump agreed: fracking is here to stay.

Once an opponent of fracking, Harris joined Trump in acknowledging its economic benefits — much to the anger of environmentalists. “I will not ban fracking,” Harris declared.

Moderator Linsey Davis of ABC News noted that the climate crisis was “important for a number of Americans, in particular younger voters.” Both candidates failed to specifically detail how they would fight the climate crisis during their debate appearance, which took place in Pennsylvania, always a hard-fought swing state.

Answers to questions during a debate do not necessarily outline a future president’s policies. However, we can garner clues from their general statements and histories to provide inferences as to how each might lead the US if elected. Let’s dig down on fracking as a way to understand their likely approach to dealing with larger climate issues when one of them assumes the executive office.

In principle, Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump have very different views about the need to decarbonize the US in order to stave off the most dangerous effects of climate pollution. Yet a steadfast hold to the practice of fracking was the sole substantive discussion point around climate change during the debate.

Rather unbelievably, when we think about it, fracking became a policy point underpinning assurances that Big Oil would remain prosperous in either of the two US Presidential candidates’ administrations.

What is “fracking?” Fracking — or “hydraulic fracturing,” to use the more correct terminology — is the most common way to produce both oil and gas in the US. Producers use advanced drilling techniques to tap into shale rock layers thousands of feet underground and then pump in millions of gallons of water, chemicals, and sand to crack open fissures that release oil, natural gas, or other fluids. It has also made natural gas so inexpensive that the fuel has become the nation’s most commonly used source for electric power, surpassing coal’s former elite status.

Fracking has created public controversy in many locations, and opposition continues in areas including Australia, South Africa, Colombia, and several US states.

Balancing renewable energy with oil and gas production: To Harris, global warming is a “crisis,” while Trump wants to “drill, baby, drill” more oil reserves. Yet, as a way to answer Linsey’s question, Harris summarized, “We have invested a trillion dollars in a clean energy economy while we have also increased domestic gas production to historic levels.” The decision to highlight oil and gas output is a clear difference from Harris’ 2019 campaign in the Democratic primaries. Then, as Bloomberg relates, Harris pledged to halt selling new fossil fuel rights on public lands and to phase out existing oil and gas leases as part of a $10 trillion climate plan.

Trump countered that Harris “will never allow fracking in Pennsylvania. If she won the election, fracking in Pennsylvania will end on day one.” Of course, what Trump failed to mention is that a president can’t “ban fracking” in Pennsylvania, as only an act of Congress will accomplish that. The important subtext to Trump’s remarks, though, points to his continual questioning of accepted climate science, how he dismisses renewable energy in a childish discourse of “windmills,” and the realization that he will prioritize unlimited production of fossil fuels if elected.

Which regulates fracking: the states or the federal government? States, not the federal government, make decisions regarding oil and gas drilling policy in most of the US, except on federal public lands. Fracking has been documented in more than 30 US states and is particularly widespread in North Dakota, Pennsylvania, and Texas, which happen to be in the more rural, conservative areas of the US. Conservative legislatures have created laws that uniquely exempt oil and gas production from municipal zoning ordinances. It’s expanding into new areas, making its way into states like California, New Mexico, and Nevada.

What factors shape people’s attitudes? People’s attitudes about fracking can be shaped by socio-demographics, economic development, social equity and politics, environmental impacts, and associated information. Factors that contribute to people’s approval of the activity include the public’s trust in local, state, and federal governments; knowledge about its process; and, its merit as a personal income source. The main factors that contribute to negative attitudes include concerns over environmental impacts and fracking’s role in delaying the pursuit of cleaner, carbon free energy alternatives.

A common theme undergirding both positive and negative concerns over fracking is a feeling of disempowerment.

Environmentalists despise fracking: Fracking requires an enormous amount of water — as much as 5 million gallons per well. It routinely employs numerous toxic chemicals, including methanol, benzene, naphthalene, and trimethylbenzene. About 25% of fracking chemicals could cause cancer, according to scientists with the Endocrine Disruption Exchange. Evidence indicates that these chemicals are making their way into aquifers and drinking water. Public concerns over fracking have included water supply impacts, greenhouse gas emissions, lack of personal control over risks, intrusion into the underground environment, induced seismicity (earth tremors), and procedural and distributional equity.

Fracking and geothermal: References to fracking often treat it as a stand-alone rather than a whole-systems approach. Perceptions of novel technologies tend to be highly dynamic, malleable, and responsive to events. The controversy over fracking for oil and gas affects public attitudes to the novel low-carbon energy technology called deep enhanced geothermal systems. Indeed, fracking’s commonly understood use in oil and gas extraction influences the conditions that deep geothermal would be expected to meet, causing spontaneous spillover for deep geothermal energy.

Fracking’s carbon emissions: Experts report lower average carbon emissions for fracking firms, together with the larger size of fracking techniques: mean of assets of $46 billion for fracking versus $12 billion for non-fracking companies. Fixed-effects and system generalized methods of moments models suggest that carbon emissions decrease market-to-book ratio (MTB) of fracking firms more than non-fracking firms. So, while fracking for oil and gas results in more eventual carbon burning, the actual fracking process is less harmful than other extraction methods.

Areas where progressives’ and conservatives’ attitudes about overlap: A 2024 study of a rural, white, and conservative Pennsylvania community offers some instructive insights on the controversies and possible common ground around fracking. Many of these residents leased their land for shale gas drilling/ fracking. Landowners who originally endorsed fracking and discredited state regulators and environmentalists eventually became troubled by how their land sovereignty and community “home rule” were eroded by petroleum companies and state zoning preemption laws. Wanting to manage the industry’s footprint and reject many state-led energy siting policies as a procedural injustice, community empowerment via alliances had the potential to influence climate action by enabling municipal checks on industrial expansion.

Grassroots environmental groups and even Vice President Harris may be able to find common cause with conservative, pro-extraction communities by campaigning for greater local control over fracking and framing it as a community rights/local democracy issue.