Keeping it clean.

In her commentary on drilling for oil and gas, Avery takes the position that Texans should not enter into the practice of fracking. Fracking is a process used to obtain oil from deep in the earth. It is done by injecting a highly pressurized mixture of water, sand, and other chemicals down into the ground in order to release the oil and natural gas. Avery cites damage to the wellbeing of the environment as her reasoning against fracking. Before reading this post, I was unaware of the process so I had no firmly held beliefs on the issue. However, afterwards, I came to agree with Avery’s attitude.

I appreciate that her argument isn’t biased in order to persuade readers. By addressing both the positive and negative outcomes of fracking, readers can get facts and then make their own informed decisions rather than taking a position and only listening to facts that reinforce it. This is an issue that requires careful consideration because benefits would be almost immediate while consequences would be delayed. It calls for people to weigh present economic security with environmental damage in the future.  

I think the combination of poor economic times, high unemployment rates and the availability of a quick and easy solution are likely to persuade people to support fracking – especially citizens in the oil business. This would create thousands of jobs and bring business to surrounding companies. The consequences addressed include the possibility of polluted drinking water taken from the ground as well as general damage that this process inflicts. While the pollution of ground water has yet to be officially proven or disproven, the fact is that with fracking, it’s possible, and without fracking, it’s not.  

As Avery recognized, the benefits from this process would be large, but only temporarily so. This process would likely only survive for 15 to 20 years. It’s true that for the time being, many people would gain jobs but when the area no longer produced work, those people would be back in a job finding situation, along with many others in the growing population.

I acknowledge that it is not an easy situation to face, but people tend to look at immediate matters with less regard for long-term effects. Cases such as these (economic vs. environmental) are especially difficult. Financial matters directly affect people. They are more personal. People know immediately when they do not have enough money for their needs. Changes can also be sudden. People who lose their jobs feel the change right away and lifestyle changes usually take place quickly. The environment on the other hand has changed slowly over time. We don’t face devastating changes on a day-to-day basis. Maybe not even year-to-year. Negative changes in the environment steadily accumulate and rarely cause immediate negative affects, so people are less likely to pay close attention. There is also the problem of dispersed responsibility. People may not feel bad about leaving the water running an extra five minutes, not recycling, or not using renewable energy sources because they feel a single person doesn’t make that big of a difference. And this is true. One person is not likely to have a big impact but many people sharing this view do.

For all these reasons, I understand why this fracking opportunity would be appealing; however, as Avery said perfectly, “All of the money in the world can't repair certain aspects of the environment.” It's past the time that we start thinking about taking care of the Earth. It's time to start being proactive and making the right choices for the future.