The USFG should ban hydraulic fracturing

Alright, one last thanks to Con for a riveting debate. Let's start out by looking at Con's specific regulations. I'm glad that Con specified some of these though, admittedly, he spends little time elucidating what adhering to the 7 major statutes means. I will assume, however, that this will increase inspection practices, and that they will be required to disclose what chemicals are in their fracking fluids. These are still insufficient. Cementing the wells won't work either, since cement can still crack over time,[42] not to mention that the list of problems include “poor thread connections, corrosion, thermal stress cracking, and other causes” that aren't addressed by this.[43] Nor will the basic issues be addressed, such as leakage through soil (due to its basic porous properties), the process of contaminating that soil, and of creating fractures that can cause earthquakes, all of which are dropped and inherent to fracking. Distance from water sources can only do so much as well. It doesn't really address the issue that hundreds of millions of gallons of water are contaminated by the practice when it's done safely.[8] Con wants examples of regulations failing. Here's a few. In Pennsylvania alone, there have been 3,331 violations of regulations in place since 2009.[44] Con doesn't suggest that they cannot dispose of their water through disposal wells, a regulated practice that can also easily contaminate groundwater.[45] Even if Con is right that this will make each individual fracking practice better, regulations will just force an increase in the number of drilling sites and rate of fracking, as it has in Colorado, increasing the harms.[46] Contamination by accident is sufficient, since it also won't be solved by regulation.[47, 48] Only a ban effectively prevents these. Onto the key issues of the debate. 1. Air pollution a. CO2 Con drops my point that oil is also dredged up through fracking, and that it comes with volatile gas infusions that make it highly explosive.[25] This challenges his CO2 benefit, but more importantly, it presents a large safety concern. It also mitigates any economic benefit he seeks to get, due to the costs required to use it. Even if there's some reduction in CO2 emissions, it's far lower than Con initially cited. It's also low impact, considering that methane is a far more potent greenhouse gas.[26] b. Methane I already showed how Con's sources on methane leakage were faulty. The sole links he provides either don't address methane leaks (his 3 and 19), or are too short term, biased, and selective (his 8). Con has not defended any of his links. My links stand uncontested, and don't suffer from any of these problems. Con seems to believe that all he has to do is present a source that disagrees with mine in order to show uncertainty, but this is absurd. Con needs sufficient doubt to throw all of my evidence into uncertainty, and he has not presented anything that would do so. The best he's done is show that emissions may be 0.5% less than a dangerous threshold he himself admits exists. That means the best case scenario is one where the benefit is minimal and uncertain, whereas the worst includes 60 tons of methane per hour rising into the atmosphere from each well.[49] c. Health Con dropped my argument that health risks come from just being close to drilling sites, which aren't solved by any of Con's regulations.[23] 2. Water pollution a. Through fracking Con drops my point that contamination has already occurred in 4 states with present regulations, and provides no warrants that his regulations will solve.[35] He drops my argument that the EPA, which would be the agency in charge of this regulation, is a terrible regulator, and misses obvious contaminants.[36] He also drops that certain contaminants will always leech into the soil, remaining after recycling the water.[37] b. Through disposal Con doesn't seek to ban disposal wells, which, as I mentioned earlier, can easily contaminate groundwater. Even if recycling is made mandatory, the practice doesn't solve for the harms. He ignores the fact that wastewater is still generated from recycling, and that that wastewater is highly concentrated with toxins.[34] He drops that the recycling process leaves behind highly concentrated radioactive solids that also require disposal.[33] Con drops my point that abandoned wells lead to massive methane leaks, which none of his regulations solves for.[19] Each of these show failures with his case that don't exist in mine. 3. Earthquakes Con drops this entire contention. By itself, this is sufficient reason to vote Pro. Look to my [8], which shows how the process works and is integral to fracking. The safety and economic harms of earthquakes are immense, and the fact that this has gone unaddressed is just baffling. Economically,, it forces huge insurance boosts on local peoples.[50] On a human level, it destroys homes and kills people.[51] Environmentally, those quakes can easily release pockets of methane, allowing all of it to escape into the atmosphere. In other words, it's a huge, diverse harm with a wide area of effect. 4. Economic harms a. Local economies These harms are most certainly topical. This is analysis of one of the many impacts the process of fracking. Whether my opponent views it as important or not is irrelevant to its topicality. All I have to prove is that it's reason enough for a legislative ban. First off, the ability for towns to ban fracking only exists in New York.[52] Con is not requiring this nationwide. Second, if towns could choose whether a fracking company comes in or not, it just means they accepted the risk. That doesn't mean the harm is any less a harm. Third, at best, this just means they are capable of escaping the harms if they have enough foresight. Fracking companies represent quite a big influx of money into numerous towns, making it difficult to refuse them.[53] There's incentive there to ignore the long term harms. Fourth, Con can't have it both ways. If all towns ban fracking, then effectively the process is banned, making it equivalent to my case. If some towns ban fracking, other towns will still be harmed as I described. Con drops the links to the spread of ghost towns and shut downs of local businesses.[38] Con also drops the point about stealing water from local businesses, further contributing to their closure.[17] So Con never contests the harms at all, only trying to mitigate them by saying that towns have agency. At most, that's a lower likelihood of a terrible impact that only he has. b. Short vs. long term Con makes the unwarranted claim “shale gas is a bridge from really crappy coal to really good green stuff.” He drops all of my warrants and evidence, which show that having a fossil fuel that is a cheap and easy source of energy keeps us dependent on fossil fuels for longer. There's no reason to believe that, with this around, we are going to treat green energy as worthy of more resources. I've shown, with copious amounts of evidence,[10, 11, 25, 40] how natural gas has changed our perception of green energy. Whether things can “change overnight” is irrelevant. I'm not saying that they will, though his lack of response to my cost points is glaring, since it suggests that it is an entirely affordable process. But that transition has only slowed down in the presence of a cheap and easy source of fuel. Our increased need for more energy is a reason to pursue renewable energy with more fervor, not double down on a limited source. Con states that bans will badly affect the economy. First, those increases to taxes and harms to GDP are able to be absorbed, even if they do happen. A state can still continue to function, unlike the small towns. Second, it's based on a set of assumptions that make it the worst-case scenario rather than the actual likely outcome.[54] Third, this assumes that no energy industry would come to replace it. The green energy sector would skyrocket in the absence of this alternative, and as it's already accelerating, this would be a big deal.[55] Considering job growth nationwide was up 38,600 in one quarter in 2013, this surge in growth could easily outdistance any drop from fracking.[56] Conclusion: I've shown that the environmental, health, and economic harms of fracking are too large to allow this practice to continue. Each is enough by itself to warrant a ban on fracking. I've shown that Con's alternative strategy of regulating the industry is insufficient, and that the harms of a ban are minimal at worst. The best he can do is present minimal doubt with faulty evidence, and then claim that it detracts from a solid, uncontested set of evidence. Don't believe this audacious, unwarranted claim. Vote Pro. 42.http://newyork.sierraclub.org...43.http://www.pnas.org...44.http://stateimpact.npr.org...45.http://www.texastribune.org...46.http://ecowatch.com...47.http://fracking.einnews.com...48.http://www.sciencedaily.com...49.http://www.sltrib.com...50.http://www.bizjournals.com...51.http://www.dallasnews.com...52.http://truth-out.org...53.http://articles.chicagotribune.com...54.http://www.denverpost.com...55.http://www.worldwatch.org...56.http://theenergycollective.com...