For the last two months I have taken on an independent study project with

Professor Gautier of the UCSB Geography department devoted to the study of

hydraulic fracturing. The intent of this project was to place much needed scrutiny on

the industry primarily regarding the leakage of Methane that occurs during the

extraction process. To date I have found that there has been a significantly small

amount of research done on such leakage, with Professor Howarth of Cornell and a

NOAA scientist in Colorado named Gabrielle Petron being two of the principle

actors. This lack of inquiry is what prompted Professor Gautier to shine a critical

light on the situation of fracking in the US especially with regard to ‘fugitive

methane’, in the hope of raising awareness among students and perhaps the public

at large of the problem and potential solutions.

One of the reasons that such awareness is lacking in the first place is that the

fracking industry in America has gone from producing the slimmest of shares of the

overall natural gas output in the US to currently producing more than conventional

natural gas mining. Future projections of shale gas production have it more than

doubling the output of tight gas by 2020 (http://www.eia.gov/energy ). Not many

people foresaw such a dramatic expansion of the fracking industry fifteen years ago;

it has literally steamrolled across the United States and put this country on top of

the list of the world’s gas producers.

Many may consider this a major achievement as our traditional reliance on

Middle Eastern petrochemicals might finally come to a practical end, not to mention

create domestic jobs, generate cleaner energy and power cleaner burning vehicles.

All of this would be a tremendous achievement of course, considering the

incalculable toll that securing such foreign resources have taken on the people living

in those areas, as well as American citizens. Clearly there needs to be an answer to

this problem and the larger geo-political questions of an increasingly powerful

China as well as Russia. These two countries pose plausible threats in their ability to

leverage trading positions, manipulate energy markets and supersede the US as the

world’s leader. Clearly, the increasingly competitive global economic arena is

driving the US to harness domestic resources, but at what cost?

Unfortunately, the warnings of the IPCC have not been sufficiently heeded by

world leaders, as evidenced by the woeful lack of binding targets among signatory

nations, as well as countries that chose to ignore the protocol altogether (Kyoto

Protocol 13). Clearly, humanity is rolling the dice concerning its ecological future by

not taking more seriously anthropogenic global warming. The relevant question

then in the context of this paper is to what degree will fracking enhance global

warming? An article published in the journal Nature in August 2011 states that

“Emissions changes could cause direct climate forcing from all long-lived non-CO2

GHGs to increase 50% over their direction radiative forcing today” (Montzka 47). It

also states “there are substantial climate benefits to managing reductions in non-

CO2 GHGs as demonstrated by the Montreal Protocol” (48).

The proviso that the Montzka article includes regarding the attainment of

climate benefits is directly related to the lifetimes of the concerned atmospheric

gases. This is where the danger really lies, as the global warming potential of

methane is up to 75 times greater than carbon dioxide at twenty-year timescales.

The implications of this fact are startling considering the meteoric rise of fracking in

the last ten years and its continued upward trajectory. What is the connection

between methane and fracking? It turns out there is a huge connection as leakage

associated with the extraction process has been measured to a rate of 2.1 percent

higher than conventional natural gas extraction (Howarth 5). However, this date

only refers to the leakage rate of a single well over the course of its lifetime.

Howarth goes on to state in the National Climate Assessment that collectively,

fracking will produce 40% to 60% more methane than conventional gas over the

next fifty years (5). Howarth also cited Shindell, who noted that reducing methane

emissions would significantly slow global warming and postpone a 1.5 degree

Celsius rise in temperature by twelve to fifteen years (pg 3). Of course, the converse

of this is true; an increase in methane emissions will accelerate the timeframe that

such a rise is achieved. Furthermore, according to a new report by Tollefson,

leakage rates are upwards of 9% in the Uinta basin as well as 4% in the Denver-

Julesburg Basin (12). Clearly, haphazard is putting it lightly when describing the

fracking industry.

Some academics have argued that in spite of many environmentalist

concerns over the potential damage that fracking may inflict, the upside is simply

too good to ignore. As more attention is placed on methane leakage and other

problems associated with fracking, it is their contention that the positives outweigh

the drawbacks as mitigation of the negative effects of fracking is already occurring.

Brantley and Meyendoff, professors of geoscience and policy, in a recent New York

Times Op Ed piece, cite a 2011 Pennsylvania law that enforced the recycling of brine

water as opposed to filtration in local treatment plants. In addition, they cite that

out of 200 wells tested for chemical contamination, only one was reported to show

any. In addition, the benefits of fracking over coal usage is emphasized by them as

the fracking process isn’t nearly as destructive to the landscape, and there is

something on the order of 200 times less mercury in natural gas compared to coal.

They question Europe’s negative stance on fracking in favor of increasing coal

reliance. They state that if fracked gas goes on to replace coal, then its benefits

would be clearly demonstrated. Their analysis ends on a seemingly conditional and

cautionary note however. The statement that if fracked gas “merely displaces efforts

to develop cleaner, non-carbon energy sources without decreasing reliance on coal,

the doom and gloom of rapid global climate change will be realized” (NY Times, 3-

14-13) needs to be considered.

This final statement of their opinion is absurdly contradictory and sadly

specious in its character. For one thing, it makes it sound as if displacing efforts to

develop clean alternative energy is a trifling goal. There is no ‘mere’ when

considering the delaying of investment in truly evolutionary energy sources. Such a

displacement would be catastrophic indeed and indicates the level of cynicism and

lack of understanding of climate change on their part. This contradicts the whole

idea behind alternative energy, which is trying to find sustainable ways to power

civilization. Such sustainability of course refers to not only the fact that alternatives

should be renewable, but that their impacts on the ecology of the planet are

minimized.

The assumption that fracking might displace cleaner energy is an important

one to explore however. The broader implication of the whole fracking phenomenon

is the question of our environmentally unsustainable future. The fact that fracking is

taking place on such a dramatic scale in the US is the perfect occasion to initiate a

discussion of the future of our climate and related energy policy. Even if fracking

was climate friendly, the impact that it is making on the land, both surface level and

below, is disgustingly scarring. The effect of the geography of the land is undeniably

disturbing, turning once serene and hospitable places into sites of industrial activity

and waste. Even in remote locations far away from human habitation, the landscape

is pockmarked and species are stressed to the breaking point, all in the name of

quick energy.

It has been made abundantly clear by the science of climate change that

replacing a dirty source of carbon with a cleaner one isn’t going to ensure that the

future world will be one that is hospitable to humanity. Even if America were to stop

coal burning completely, China and India’s use would more that compensate. Since

2000, the growth of coal-based electricity has eclipsed renewables by a factor of ten

worldwide (Porter). It is clear from the lessons learned in the last ten regarding the

fall of US carbon emissions that economics plays a major role, thus the solution to

global warming has to take the incentive approach, which is to say remove the

incentive to burn carbon through taxes and use the generated income to subsidize

new technology.

Standing by and watching the proliferation of a dubious new technology is

clearly not the required response if effective mitigation of global warming is to be

achieved. Simply exploiting every available carbon resource is not the answer. A

recent National Geographic Article explains how fracking companies are eyeing a

popular state park as public officials become more powerless to stop them. This

represents a particularly pathetic and depressing trend in the industry’s

development. We as a society seem to be willing to sacrifice even our last refuges of

peace, beauty and freedom to keep our economic machine the way it is. 700,000

acres of Pennsylvania state forest has already been leased, and a report by the

National Park Service indicates that “over the course of many years wells could be

drilled on every available spacing unit” (Lavelle 1). Such desperation for energy

needs to be recognized for what it is, a mode of behavior incredibly at odds with

maintaining a hospitable environment for living species, us included.

As a species, humans have the unique ability to foresee the future based on

current evidence, and its plain to see that if an approach to climate change isn’t

taken based on science, we will be fouling our nests to such a huge degree that

adaptation to future warming will be extremely painful, if not impossible. The

events of the last few years (Katrina, Superstorm Sandy and the Midwest drought)

are warnings of even more severe realities to come, yet sadly only potentially

serving to humble us rapacious humans into a more conscientious state of mind.

Despite the difficulty of changing habitually negative behavior, the challenge

of adapting to disappearing coastlines and deserts where grain once grew greatly

overshadows it. So why not make it easier on ourselves and face the facts about

fracking now so we don’t have to face a much grimmer reality later? The facts about

fracking are that it’s a destructive form of energy that won’t save us from climate

change. Our investment, energy and effort needs to be directed toward addressing

the unavoidably reality of the warming planet in its full scope if the future is to be

remotely recognizable to the current generation of humans.

Bibliography

Brantly, Susan and Meyendoff, Anna. “The Facts about Fracking.” The New York

Times. 3-13-2013.

http://www.eia.gov/energy_in_brief/article/about_shale_gas.cfm

Howarth, Robert. “Methane Emissions from Natural Gas Systems.” Background

paper prepared for the National Climate Assessment. 2-25-12.

The Kyoto Protocol and Reference Manual on Accounting of Emissions of Assigned

Amount, pg 13.

Lavelle, Marianne. “Special Report: The Great Shale Rush.” National Geographic

Daily News. 10-17-10.

Montzka, S.A. “Non-CO2 Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change.” Nature, 8-4-11.

Porter, Eduardo. “A Model for Reducing Emissions.” New York Times, 3-19-13.

Tollefson, Jeff. “Methane Leaks Erode Green Credentials of Natural Gas.” Nature, 1-3-

13.