In a previous Daily Orange environmental column, the columnist advised Gov. Andrew Cuomo to put citizensí health before business and ban fracking statewide. It’s a popular opinion among environmentalists but it shows no understanding of the global energy landscape. Cuomo would be wrong to ban fracking outright.

The scientific name for fracking is hydraulic fracturing, where gas companies drill into shale reserves deep underground that contain untapped natural gas resources, which can be converted into inexpensive energy.

The main gripe with fracking, made clear by the protests ever since Cuomo began contemplating the decision, is how the drilling affects drinking water. Fracking sites inject millions of gallons of water, sand, and unclassified chemicals into the ground through massive steel casings. The casings often pass through aquifers containing drinking water in order to get to shale deposits, which typically sit over a mile below groundwater reserves.

There have been reports of faucets catching on fire and people getting sick, possibly as a result of drinking contaminated water. Neighborhoods are overrun with trucks carrying millions of gallons of water. Chemicals injected through the steel casings are unclassified. The possible health consequences are clear. They can be managed through regulation and better safety standards. A ban on fracking for those reasons is ill-advised.

The fracking revolution has made the United States the number one natural gas producer in a world that is consuming more natural gas today than ever before. Robert Bryce’s 2010 book “Power Hungry” states that natural gas’ share of global energy consumption in 2008 was 30 percent — 10 percentage points higher than in 1973. Oil is seeing the opposite trend.

We have to decrease our reliance on coal and oil, the two carbon-heaviest fuels we burn. After all, the U.S. is the No. 2 and No. 1 consumer of both, respectively, according to the U.S. Energy Information Association. Natural gas is a stepping stone to achieving that goal. Fracking allows us to back away from coal-fired power plants — the true environmental disaster that we should be fighting. Renewable sources of energy do not have the power to do that.

According to David Owen’s 2012 book “The Conundrum”, solar, wind and geothermal energy usage make up less than one percent of total global energy consumption. Their ability to produce the power that we need, when we need it, is flimsy at best. Saying ban fracking and invest in renewables is a stunningly lazy argument, perpetuated by the likes of the New York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG’s) protests, which are ultimately failing at the task of inspiring an intelligent conversation regarding our energy future. 

I would like to see what Nigeria, India and the rest of the developing world has to say about banning natural gas extraction and instead relying on solar and wind energy. Those countries need cheap, abundant natural gas to get lights in peoplesí homes. They are investing in natural gas production and nobody has the right to stop them, especially the U.S., the world’s greatest consumer of energy per-capita by an astronomical margin.

We must start to generate a more intelligent conversation about natural gas extraction. Instead of calling for bans, let’s talk about better regulation and better safety standards. Let’s discuss the massive shale deposits placed around the world, waiting to be harnessed by developing countries that need it. What will protestors be saying when natural gas use helps the U.S. meet carbon emission limits as the resource replaces its dirtier coal and oil counterparts?

Let’s figure out how to make the transition away from coal and oil in a way that protects our people and makes economic, international sense. Fracking has a place in that strategy. 

Phil Kramer is a sophomore finance and television, radio and film major. His column appears weekly. You can reach him at [email protected].

Published on August 25, 2014 at 12:01 am