A nationwide ban is the wrong way to go, as it is indisputable that fracking has been a net positive for America’s energy sector, its customers and for climate change.
A year ago U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and other Democratic lawmakers unveiled the Green New Deal, the aggressive environmental proposal that sought to utterly overhaul the American economy and get the nation off fossil fuels within a decade.
The proposal eventually amassed 98 House backers — all Democrats — but flamed out in a 57-0 vote in the Senate, where not a single Democratic senator supported it.
Undeterred in her revolt against modernity, Ocasio-Cortez last week offered a bill that would ultimately ban hydraulic fracturing — or fracking — in America by 2025.
Unlike a year ago, Rep. Darren Soto, a Kissimmee Democrat who represents eastern Polk County, has joined Ocasio-Cortez in this effort.
“We cannot deny the overwhelming scientific consensus any longer,” Soto said in a statement. “Fracking is a threat to our health, safety and environment.”
“If we want to transition from fossil fuel emissions as we work towards building a 100 percent clean economy, pulling back from fracking is a critical first step,” he added. “Failure to act will only make the crisis at hand even more detrimental for future generations of Americans.”
We can understand why fracking concerns many like Congressman Soto, for reasons both above and below ground. We also acknowledge a philosophical conflict on this issue. In this space we have opposed efforts to implement fracking in Florida, even as we appreciate how it has benefited our nation.
Yet a nationwide ban is the wrong way to go, as it is indisputable that fracking has been a net positive for America’s energy sector, its customers and for climate change.
Thus, we encourage the rest of Congress to ignore this proposal from Soto, Ocasio-Cortez, et Soto, Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Bernie Sanders, who has sponsored a Senate version of this bill.
As Drew Johnson of the right-leaning National Center for Public Policy Research recently noted in an opinion piece, fracking enabled America to become the globe’s leading natural gas producer in 2015. Just two years ago, natural gas production was up 60% over two decades ago, and, Johnson noted, “This newfound abundance of natural gas has helped our nation transition away from coal, which emits twice as much carbon dioxide.”
According to him, “U.S. carbon dioxide emissions have hit 30-year lows, even as global emissions have increased by 50% during the same period. And since 2005, natural gas has done more to reduce power sector dioxide emissions than all renewable energy sources combined.”
Last week, per an Associated Press report, the Paris-based International Energy Agency announced that global man-made greenhouse gas emissions last year remained at 2018 levels. The IEA pointed out that the biggest drop in carbon dioxide emissions was recorded in the U.S., which was partly attributed to closing coal-fired power plants. What happens when those plants shut down? The New York Times explained last June: “Since 2005, most power companies have lowered their carbon dioxide emissions significantly, in large part by shifting from coal to (natural) gas.”
Meanwhile, last October Duke University reported in a study that “For every megawatt of electricity produced using natural gas instead of coal, the amount of water withdrawn from local rivers and groundwater is reduced by 10,500 gallons, the equivalent of a 100-day water supply for a typical American household.” Further, the study said, “If all coal-fired power plants are converted to natural gas, the annual water savings will reach 12,250 billion gallons — that’s 260% of current annual U.S. industrial water use.”
We’re don’t seek to discourage continued alternative energy development, such as Lakeland Electric is pursuing with solar fields.
But a wholesale swap to wind and solar, with a correlating ban on fracking, would devastate America’s economy, particularly workers in the fossil fuel industry and in related fields, and crush utility customers.
For an example of the latter, consider that throughout 2018, as natural gas production ramped up, Lakeland Electric paid a monthly average of $3.20 per 1 million BTUs. Last year that rate dropped to $2.56. In January, the utility’s cost was $2.03. The utility’s customers are benefiting from the gas boom.
The ban advocated by Soto, Ocasio-Cortez and Sanders, as with so much in the debate over climate change, sounds great in theory. But the economic consequences of its reality make it too risky an option to let it escape the drawing board.
Read it from theledger.com – Photo by Pixabay from Pexels
