20th November 2016, 9:31 PM
So, here's the case for fracking: About ten-ish years ago, about 50% of American electricity came from coal. Now it's only 33%, I believe. That big decline is mostly thanks to natural gas, which mostly has expanded because of fracking. Natural gas on its own is a significantly less carbon-emitting fuel than coal is. I know that fracking itself causes some pollution as well, but still, overall I'm pretty sure it is a cleaner fuel than coal by a decent margin, and that's important because while the world as it is is probably kind of doomed thanks to climate change, we need to do everything we can to make it slightly less horrible. Natural gas over coal is a step forwards, since we aren't at a point where we could quickly build up wind and solar enough to replace fossil fuels yet. We need to be, but we aren't.
And that's why in the Democratic primaries I agreed more with Hillary's position on fracking (allow it but with strict controls on pollution, etc. that make it hard to do unless it's done right) over Bernie's (ban it all if possible). Yes, it's bad that fracking is causing earthquakes in Oklahoma, and the state should implement controls on the amount of fracking to reduce that for sure, but we need to get natural gas from somewhere, that coal needs to stay in the ground!
And that's why in the Democratic primaries I agreed more with Hillary's position on fracking (allow it but with strict controls on pollution, etc. that make it hard to do unless it's done right) over Bernie's (ban it all if possible). Yes, it's bad that fracking is causing earthquakes in Oklahoma, and the state should implement controls on the amount of fracking to reduce that for sure, but we need to get natural gas from somewhere, that coal needs to stay in the ground!