The USFG should ban hydraulic fracturing

I'm cutting it awfully close to the deadline, 3 minutes left to post!My opponent asks me to suggest some sorts of regulations which would make fracking safer,and although I do not necessarily thing I am required to do this by the resolution I will indulge him. RegulationYou could start by removing exemptions from the 7 major statutes that we both mentioned. I have also already mentioned that by mandating nationally and enforcing the cementing of wells, dangers from methane leakage and chemical spills could be reduced. Also, there could be regulations about the depth of fracking; mandating that fracking must be performed below a certain depth to avoid contamination of belowground water. Regulations about drilling beneath water in the ground at all, perhaps a ban on fracking that is directly below groundwater, could also be implemented. The point is that there are lots and lots of options to reduce the majority of any incidents. My opponent states that there will still be a risk even if there is regulation. That is really a non-argument in my opinion unless he specifies the risks he means. Obviously there is always a risk of something going wrong. Humans screw things up, but that isn’t an effective refutation of regulations vs bans. Even if fracking was banned, someone could screw up some oil drilling or some wind power installation and blow something up or drop a turbine on someone. And without a basis in fact, without some proof that fracking is harmful when properly regulated, there is no basis to say that regulations will fail. My opponent states that any instances of contamination are enough to warrant a fracking ban, but then goes on to say that the instances of contamination are a result of bad practices. I too cited a case of fracking gone wrong, where there was fracking at far too shallow a depth, shallower than fracking usually is. I guess I will slightly reorganize what my division of the environmental issues into inherent risks and not inherent risks. I’ll label the risks as such as I go. Carbon emissions (inherent)I actually did not ignore, as my opponent states, that exported coal reduces the carbon benefit. I in fact stated that although some of the carbon from coal is exported there is still a net reduction in carbon. So ha! I found that hole in my argument and acknowledged it before you! But there is still a net benefit, a substantial net benefit, over carbon.Methane leakage (not inherent) The difference in what our sources say on methane leakage is indicative of a larger issue in my opponents case; the lack of scientific consensus on a lot of the issues surrounding fracking. My sources showed that, after long periods of monitoring, wells did not exceed the 2% methane leakage. His sources show that they do. Until a consensus can be established, until the pro-ban side can prove that fracking leaks enough methane to be rendered harmful across the board, a ban would be wrong and unfounded.And in addition to a lack of consensus about the magnitude of this issue, this is one that is reducible. Lots of these issues are “quick fix” type issues, like tightening pipes, others are more difficult like replacing valves in pumping stations. Some repairs are expensive, but the point stands that methane leakage is fixable, if it even needs to be fixed. The EPA is increasing regulation in this area, and that if anything shows that these things can be fixed without a ban. (22/23). Belowground (not inherent when done correctly)With some of the above regulations, particularly the depth limits on fracking should prevent these problems. As I look into these cases, most of the damage involving contamination seems to involve waste water being released into water, methane leaking into wastewater, or drilling occurring at too shallow of a level and contaminating waste water. The first 2 are negligent and are above ground problems, not below. And though these are wrong they can be easily corrected by keeping companies monitored for waste water disposal and methane leakage near water. The third is also negligent as well but only because when fracking is performed at a shallow depth, as I cited in my opening, it is far more likely to contaminate water wells. But as I said in my opening, when fracking is done at the proper depth and there are no surface issues, there is little to suggest that there is contamination of above ground water. There needs to be more evidence before a ban is justified, and considering that all of the reasons listed above can be regulated to prevent, that is even more so the case. Wastewater (inherent, but kind of not if done right)My source number 14 was the one for wastewater, sorry for not citing some stuff, I’ll note what info was not sourced here if it comes. I wrote my argument kind of late and forgot some stuff. But my opponent says that recycling is expensive, which doesn’t matter because that is a company expense. It certainly shouldn’t factor into a ban.Economic (inherent good and bad)I will keep this section brief, since I don’t think it is a big issue for 2 reasons.The first is that I don’t think my opponent has a broad enough case to factor into a ban, certainly not a constitutional ban. If fracking companies move into the area of small towns, no one is forcing those areas to open businesses that will close in the long term. And, if those towns so object to fracking, towns can ban the fracking in their areas themselves, another form of non-federal ban that prevents any risks in areas that don’t want it. If a town doesn’t want the benefits and possible risks of fracking, they can block the fracking from coming in. And on top of a federal ban for this reason alone (meaning that without a good enough case on the environment, the economy shouldn’t be considered) probably not standing a court challenge, I don’t think it should factor into the resolution at all. It seems off topic to me (25).However, banning fracking would be harmful, I will reiterate. At a statewide level, a ban in Colorado alone would cost the state roughly a billion dollars in taxes over 25 years,roughly 93,000, and 2.6% of the state’s GPD (24). And, interestingly, this study includes the same provision in the resolution, that current fracking operations continue. That is just one state that would suffer lots of consequences economically from a ban. And one additional economic point- my opponent points out that green energy is growing in terms of electricity production and that green energy is cheap. That is fantastic; I am not arguing that fracking should be preserved forever. If green energy continues to grow and is cheap then it will eclipse fracking and that is fantastic. But that shouldn’t be a reason for a ban and it is a good reason not to ban. Shale gas is a bridge from really crappy coal to really good green stuff. It is cheap and easy in the meantime while green energy works on becoming the norm. But wind power is only 3% of the electricity produced in the US, and solar power is a tiny, fraction of that at .28%. That isn’t going to change overnight, and unless my opponent has a viable alternative that could easily and quickly fulfill the roughly 10%, and growing, of US electricity from natural gas that is fracked (27) that is better environmentally than natural gas, or cheaper, then a ban isn’t too viable. So to summarize- there are many regulatory options to deal with fracking. There are regulatory options for dealing with wastewater; regulatory options for dealing with methane leakage (and there is no consensus that methane leakage is a real problem); regulatory options for mitigating possible water damage from water contamination when fracking is done responsibly (even though there is a lack of consensus about that too); and regulatory options for mitigating economic damage to small communities if they don’t want it (even though fracking certainly has economic benefits).And on top of all of the things that can be solved with regulation, there is a lack of consensus about the presence and magnitude of environmental really puts a whole in a case for a ban. That’s about as much as I feel I need to say, until these issues are resolved I hope that I will have earned some votes. 21-http://www.narucmeetings.org...22-http://e360.yale.edu...23-http://www.edf.org...24-http://thecoloradoobserver.com... 25-http://online.wsj.com... 26-http://en.wikipedia.org... 27-http://www.eia.gov...