In recent discussions of hydrofracking, a key issue is whether it can be conducted safely or if the risks to the environment are too high to attempt it. On the one hand, some argue that the rewards we could earn from conducting hydrofracking outweigh the risks and we should do it wherever there is a shale bed. From this perspective, being able to sell natural gas and other resources obtained from fracking is more important than the small potential of contaminating the aquifers where they are being worked on. On the other hand, others argue that the risks of hydrofracking far outweigh the potential rewards we could earn. From this perspective, damaging an entire communities water supply is not worth the potential financial rewards.
My own view is that the risks are way to high to consider fracking nationwide. Also, I don't believe that there have been enough tests done to determine if this process can be done safely in any way or not. While I do agree that the financial payoffs could be very helpful, especially to rising fuel prices, I still feel that it isn't worth the risks of losing all potential fresh water for a community. For example in Pennsylvania, where fracking is pretty widespread, there are some cases where entire towns have no way to get fresh water because it is all contaminated due to the fracking. The issue is important because oil companies want to start this process as soon as possible to try and make profits, but I think the government needs to put an end to it.
It will be difficult to vet sources for this paper since both sides appeal to logo and present "straight forward" facts and figures that the other side claims are biased and half-true. So as you sort your sources, do some extra digging to ensure that you're not unwittingly using propaganda from one side or the other.
ReplyDelete