The Instigator
thomaswelsh1
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
dylanm123
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Should there be a ban on fracking?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/7/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 841 times Debate No: 43564
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

thomaswelsh1

Con

There should not be a ban on franking of natural gas in the United States because of the immense amount of benefits it bring that strongly out weigh the negative outcomes of fraking.
dylanm123

Pro

Fracking: Hydraulic Fracturing, a process by which gas, petroleum and uranium-bearing solution is extracted from the ground. This is achieved when water is mixed with sand and chemicals and then injected into a wellbore, hence creating 'fractures in the well'. Although this process has been declared 'clean' by many companies, this is a case where the environmental effects (contamination of water, risks to air quality, noise pollution, migration of gases to the surface) which result from this dangerous process, have been severely overlooked. And, the reason why these companies choose to overlook these environmental dangers, is the obvious economic benefits which result from 'Fracking'; it is cheap to extract materials this way. This process has already been banned in countries such as France and Bulgaria. In the next round i will be extending my argument, focusing on the detrimental effects that fracking can have on the environment.
Debate Round No. 1
thomaswelsh1

Con

Yes, in the method of Hydraulic Fracturing chemicals can possibly leak into water supplies contaminating it. While this sounds bad there have not been any recorded deaths in the United States regarding humans while drinking this water. Actually Solar Panels kill more people in the United States compared to fracking statistically speaking because the process of making them is highly toxic. This leads me to the question why should the United States spend money on "green energy" while its costly and reliable than Natural Gas. Also regarding the environment, natural gas is clean burning and releases very little C02 emissions compared oil and coal making it a better source of energy than them regarding "air quality."

North Dakota is a perfect example of the economic benefits that the natural gas industry has given to the United States. Ever since the natural gas boom there unemployment has dropped and it has the lowest unemployment rate in the country at just 2.7 percent and has led the United States to become the number one oil and gas exporter in the world, ahead of Russia and China.
dylanm123

Pro

Although contaminated water from fracking hasn't directly lead to the deaths of people, it has harmed and caused sickness to many. Chris Mobaldi, who lives in Rifle, Colorado, believes her neurological system was damaged by drinking water that was contaminated by drilling fluids from wells around her home. The result? She has two tumours removed from her pituitary gland, and she endured excruciating pain. And this may not have lead to her death, but there is a strong chance her life could have been shortened, simply due to drinking contaminated water. On November 9, 2009, a man reported that 480 acres of land in Pennsylvania had been ruined with toxic chemicals. The man carried out tests on the water beforehand, and after the incident, he found arsenic at 2600 times acceptable levels. In Louisiana, 16 cattle mysteriously (or not so mysteriously) dropped dead in a field, after drinking from a fluid adjacent to a natural gas drilling rig. These fluids were identified to be used for hydraulic fracturing. In Texas, three families noticed changes in their well water. They started smelling sulphur, and after witnessing 5 goats and a llama die, they deemed the water 'unusable'. There was a natural gas well a few hundred yards from their properties. These stories are not coincidental, we must accept that Hydraulic Fracturing is dangerous, and we must stop it.

There are a range of health concerns surrounding Hydraulic Fracturing. These include: neurological (headaches, dizziness), respiratory (cough, nose bleeds), gastrointestinal (stomach aches, diarrhoea). In addition, people have concerns about long-term disease rates of exposure to cancer-causing fracking chemicals in the air and water.

The opposition talked about green energy, and supposed the question, why should the United States spend money on "green energy?" It is true, natural gas emits less CO2 then oil and coal. But natural gas emits more CO2 then reliable sustaining sources of green energy, such as wind energy and solar energy. And when Natural Gas needs to be obtained by such dangerous processes (Hydraulic Fracturing), it is a much simpler solution to use other alternatives. Alternatives that are reliable and do not pose health hazards.

The opposition talked about the economic benefits, and maybe during a time of recession this argument can be emphasised, but we need to remember the dangerous health risks involved with this practice of fracturing. And why can't other forms of more sustainable energy be used to economically benefit people as well? Solar Panels, while expensive to install, save money on a long-term basis. We can produce jobs revolving around better choices of energy: sustainable, safe energy? And we must do this, because Hydraulic Fracturing is detrimental and possesses clear health risks.
Debate Round No. 2
thomaswelsh1

Con

thomaswelsh1 forfeited this round.
dylanm123

Pro

dylanm123 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.