Activity 4.2.1 – Applying My Environmental Policy Frameworks.
Fracking – Why is hydrofracking contentious?
Problem Statement:
Hydrofracking is the process of pumping water, sand, and many chemicals into shale rocks to get access to oil and natural gas that is located deep underground. The problem with Hydrofracking is, it is too harmful for the environment and the people to be used as a common source of natural gas and oil. This process has been around ever since "1947" (Suchy and Newell, 2012) and is today, exponentially more effective than it was at the process's creation. Hydrofracking is a combination of the word "Hydraulic fracturing" (Cohen, 2014). This is very financially profitable and it will be for a long time because estimates show that there are about "482 trillion cubic feet of shale gas potential underground" (Cohen, 2014) in the United States only. This process makes up about thirty-four percent of the United States' natural gas.
This high value is one of the reasons that the process is continued today despite the possibility (and likelihood) of problems with the environment. One of the most serious issues that may come with hydrofracking is the contamination of the waterbed. Hydrofracking takes place beneath the water bed but the chance of exposure is always there. This is a large problem because some of the chemicals released can cause health problems such as cancer. Another problem that hydrofracking creates is that of waste, millions of gallons are wasted by fracking. Thankfully, some companies attempt to gather water and hydrofracking materials, after they are used, and recycle them. Unfortunately, some of the materials used in the process are harmful to humans so there is always a risk of exposure.
Hydrofracking also has a '30%" (Cohen, 2014) higher release rate of methane which is known to harm the environment in numerous ways (this information is now outdated). "When natural gas is burned, it produces less pollution and carbon emissions than coal or oil, but it is not free of pollution." (Cohen, 2014). Despite all of the problems hydrofracking's ability to create affordable natural gas and oil is very good for the population and determining if allowing hydrofracking to continue is a loaded question.
Frames:
Identity Frames
The identity of a person has a great impact on the people that try to determine if Hydrofracking should be allowed in the United States. Those that have had a personal experience of losing a job would not wish the same fate to be put open the hydrofracking workers. This might convince them that hydrofracking does more good for the workers than it harms the environment. Other factors that may influence public opinion might include, those who have suffered through a large earthquake, those who care for the environment, and those who have lung conditions. People who have been through large earthquakes would not want to repeat the same events and might very well be against fracking of any kind. Those who have lung conditions would want to be near any type of fracking because of the fear of particles in the air. People who care for the environment would want the government to be drilling holes in the earth the extract materials that contaminate the earth in the first place, environmentalist would surely be against hydrofracking.
Characterization Frames
Characterization can play a role in all sorts of decision people make in their lives, deciding if hydrofracking should be allowed in so exception. There is some overlap with their identity but characterization separates itself by looking at broader signifiers such as age, race, religion, culture, gender, location, and ethnicity. Locations have the most swaying power in this case, with people living in low-income areas seeing the new higher-paying jobs close to home as a great idea. On the other side, people who live in earthquake-prone locations, such as fault lines, may be wearier of whether or not to allow Hydrofracking.
Conflict Management Frames
People manage conflicts differently and whether or not hydrofracking should be allowed (or restricted) is a conflict. Hydrofracking companies will surely be fighting to keep their business going using tactics such as explaining how much natural gas and oil are being exported (transfers to money for the locals). They can also argue that hydrofracking is great for the community because it creates jobs and increases the tax money flowing into the location. On the other side of the question, people could be convinced by the influx of people reporting on the dangers of hydrofracking, especially on social media.
Fact Finding Frames
People who more often check the news, read newspapers, or spend time on social media are more likely to be exposed to the phenomena of hydrofracking. People who are more susceptible to believing the information on the internet will, unfortunately, believe anything that they hear that compliments the side of the issue that they already agree on. This also works the other way, people who believe what they see on the internet without checking, will refuse anything that goes against their preexisting beliefs. Also, those who are less tech-savvy will probably not hear about hydrofracking at all.
Risk Management Frames
Risk management is very important in many decisions in life and deciding on the fate of hydrofracking is no different. Hydrofracking comes with a large list of potential risks that come with drilling deep underground. Firstly, earthquakes may happen and those affect the whole population nearby. Other risks that one must incur if they intend to start Hydrofracking are potential water contamination, the release of cancer-causing chemicals, and inevitable waste of water. These risks have to be balanced by the upsides of increasing jobs in the area, (hydrofracking) being less harmful than other forms of gathering natural gas and bringing economic prosperity to the location. It is all up to a person's risk management abilities to decide if they are for or against hydrofracking.
Comments
Post a Comment