The USFG should ban hydraulic fracturing

Thanks to my opponent for a powerful opening argument. Just a brief note, though – in R2, some voters might notice a line or two of rebuttal to a phantom opponent. Much of my argument was derived from a previous debate on this topic, and, much to my chagrin, I did not edit it sufficiently to remove all such references. Any such reference doesn't apply to this debate. Alright, onto some rebuttal. To start, Con says multiple times that we could use regulations to solve many of the problems involved in fracking, and yet he never states a single regulation he would suggest. He says that regulations should be implemented to protect against accidents, but not what those regulations are. He says that this vague regulation would be affordable and “allow economic prosperity to continue,” but these are unverifiable assertions based on an unknown case. If Con would like to support a suggested regulation in the links he's provided, he needs to detail those regulations. I would argue that many of these problems won't be solved by any regulation, but I won't assume his case and its deficits. If Con wishes, he may clarify what regulations he supports in the next round. Until then, these points have no meaning. Carbon emissions: This argument ignores the reality that we’re increasing the amount of coal we’re sending to other countries. They still consume it, and therefore the reduction in CO2 generated is about 50% lower than Con suggests. Con also assumes that the sole cause of reduced CO2 emissions is the shift to natural gas. However, electricity production in the U.S. went down by 2.5% between 2007 and 2012, and wind power has increased from 0.8% to 3.3% of electricity production.[24] These play substantial roles in CO2 reduction. But this isn't just about gas, it's also about oil. Fracking also improves access to this resource, which still produces high levels of CO2. Worse yet, it's highly combustible, “full of volatile gases that make it tricky to transport and process into fuel,” requiring special facilities to refine them and therefore longer transport distances. Among the biggest problems is that it causes explosions that derail trains and kill people, as happened in Quebec. This has reduced the price of oil due to the increased access, increasing the usage of this fossil fuel as well.[25] Other harms like earthquakes also present significant risks, both of increased methane emissions, as well as safety and economic concerns. And speaking of methane, the study from the US Energy Information Agency that Con cites only takes into account CO2 emissions. This is problematic, as methane is a far more dangerous greenhouse gas, with 20 times greater impact on climate change based on its ability to trap heat.[26] How about the long term? If all houses in the U.S. powered solely by natural gas, every one would average 6 tons of CO2 per year. That's not including any and all leakage, which may in fact be higher than the 1.5% cited by UT-EDF. There are a number of problems with this study, including non-random selection, limited time courses, and monitoring only a small number of fracking events.[27] There is also still some question of impropriety on their part, as the research was funded partially by the industry and researchers had conflicts of interest.[28] There are no such problems with this study form Harvard, NOAA and Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, which concluded that it was at least 3%.[29] Many other studies conclude much higher rates in Colorado's Uintah Basin and the L.A. Basin.[30, 31] Con even cites a source saying that fracking would have no benefit if leakage levels are above 2%, and these studies exceed that threshold. Wastewater: I don't see any specific citations of Con's data here, but I'd say I've already addressed this in the previous round under my point on earthquakes, where I showed the effects of its disposal. Con never states that a part of his regulations is forcing companies to recycle their wastewater. This is a problem, since most recycling and treatment options are significantly more expensive than disposal.[32] I also showed, under my short term economic harms, how the recycling process leaves behind a lot of harmful stuff. The level of radiation is so high that landfills are refusing to take it.[33] It still produces some liquid waste, which is actually far more toxic, and must be disposed of.[34] With uncertain proprietary fracking chemicals, it's much more difficult to check if the water is actually clean. Moreover, this doesn't really change the fact that that water is being taken away from the local economy, damaging businesses that depend on it. Con cites a source saying that the water usage only accounts for a small portion of overall water usage, but this ignores the fact that all of that usage is taken from local sources, many of which cannot afford to lose it. Aboveground: The major assumption here is that methane leakage is solely the result of accidents. However, as I've already shown, it's a process inherent to the porosity of soil, and therefore cannot be prevented by any improved safety measures. I've already shown that leakage levels are likely far higher than 1.5%, reaching the threshold of 2% that Con cites. The harms aren't restricted to methane leaks either. Local humans and animals near drilling sites have pervasive health harms that result from their proximity.[23] Belowground: I would argue that any instances of contamination are sufficient reason to ban fracking, as this can cause massive health harms, especially considering that we don't know the chemicals involved in that contamination, but I'll show that it's happened and it's significant. Four states – Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, and Texas – have all confirmed contamination.[35] The EPA hasn't exactly been a great source of information when it comes to contamination of water sources, missing combustible levels of methane in the water in Texas.[36] The capacity of certain contaminants to leech into the soil following fracking has been established by other studies as well, and so there's little reason to believe that this wouldn't be a problem in the field.[37] Con provides some evidence himself (his 16), showing that wells have been damaged due to bad fracking practices. Even if he clarifies his regulations next round, they're never going to be 100% effective at preventing this, meaning that the risks will continue to exist. Economy: This point has a few key problems. First, it's only looking at the overarching picture and ignoring the local level. As I argued in the previous round, local communities are massively harmed by fracking practices. The boom and bust cycles that are involved in their entry and exit leaves people out in the cold, even creating actual ghost towns,[38] all for a small benefit in pricing improvements to the rest of the country. Resource grabs and health harms also run up massive costs for the local economy, forcing a huge burden on small towns. The people of the state rarely see any real benefits.[18] Even improvements to the jobs market are tapering off.[39] Second, all of the economic benefits supercharge my harms scenarios. The lower cost fossil fuel that's so easy to transition to ensures our continued dependence on a non-renewable resource, disincentivizing any investment into green energies and ensuring our long term dependence.“New investments in renewable energy sources declined 5% in North America last year to $56 billion, the lowest since 2010... By comparison, North American oil and gas companies spent $168.2 billion in exploration and production last year, more than double 2009.”[40] This also tacks back Con's argument on CO2 emissions, since every fuel source will eventually be used. Third, electricity costs for some renewable energies are actually more cost effective than natural gas. The costs of using wind energy are lower than the costs of using gas for this purpose, and solar power plants, which delivery power at lower cost than natural gas power plants. The cost comparison can be seen here: http://www.debate.org...; /> Looking further out, “because they have zero fuel cost, wind and other renewables tend to exert downward pressure on wholesale electricity costs”.[37] So there's little uncertainty here. Either solar or wind power should be preferred. With that, I leave it to Con to continue this debate. 24.http://theenergycollective.com... 25.http://online.wsj.com... 26.http://epa.gov... 27.http://www.psehealthyenergy.org... 28.http://desmogblog.com... 29.http://www.pnas.org... 30.http://cires.colorado.edu... 31.http://www.esrl.noaa.gov... 32.http://www.bloomberg.com... 33.http://www.denverpost.com... 34.http://www.nytimes.com... 35.http://mashable.com... 36.http://rt.com... 37.http://www.wallstreetotc.com... 38.http://www.ithaca.com... 39.http://www.nationaljournal.com... 40.http://www.businessweek.com... 41.http://www.renewableenergyworld.com...