The USFG should ban hydraulic fracturing

My opponent took the liberty to try and refute a bunch of arguments I didn't explicitly make with his last round, which I find odd. But I will run through the points again anyway before wrapping up. I'd like to thank him for a fun debate; I picked a side of an issue I do not agree with and learned a decent amount, even though I agree largely with my opponent. I do not think, based on the evidence, that a fracking ban is in any way justified.Regulation/methaneMy opponent prompts me for regulatory measures, but my case wasn't based entirely around regulatory measure. He pokes some really weak holes in some of the proposed measures. For example, cement cracks over time. That is quite weak, cement can be easily fixed. If cementing of wells was mandated, the cement would be maintained, much in the same way that roads are maintained. Something that cracks can be repaired. And obviously I don't have the character space to go and address every single source of methane leakage from fracking. I don't know why my opponent expects me to. But links I posted (22/23) detail most of the sources of methane leakage and the ways they can be fixed. Methane leakage is not a problem inherent and can be mostly regulated against and fixed, despite what my opponent says. And my opponents attempt to dismiss my main source on methane leakage is really sad. The UT helped form the basis for the EPA estimate on methane leakage. The EPA is the one who estimates methane leakage to be 1.5%, that isn't something I made up. Are there studies that indicate otherwise? Sure, but there is far from a consensus. The current EPA estimate is 1.5, that number is backed up by scientific studies, contrary to what my opponent says. The data is high quality. My opponent fails to establish that there is a significant body of evidence showing that this study and others are wrong, and that methane leakage is definitively higher. My point isn't that they aren't, my point is that there is no proof that they are and that this issue can be fixed. He should lose this point. Waste water/contaminationI cannot deny that fracking uses a lot of water, nor that this water becomes dirty. Nor that there is potential for accidents with the contaminated water. But I have shown that fracking water can be recycled in very high percentages, mitigating the water usage damage. Contaminated solids can be disposed of or stored at no expense or risk to the public. My opponent states that I have not presented anything to contradict his contamination claims. However, contamination is not inherently linked to responsible fracking, as I have stated and as he has failed really address. Most of contamination incidents happen from above ground accidents from spills, methane leakage, or poor well construction. There is little (none that I have seen) evidence that fracking done responsibly at the proper depth contaminates water. When fracking is done right it isn't dangerous, and regulation can ensure that fracking is done right. Negligence can be fixed. EconomyThe four local economy ban points1. The ability of towns to ban fracking can easily exist in other states with a court challenge. 2. True, and the benefits. 3. Yes, fracking is beneficial economically to communities, so they have little reason to refuse it. 4. I can have it both ways, the resolution is that the USGF ban fracking. Small communities don't have to accept the risks and benefits if they don't want, but there shouldn't be a federal ban when towns can do it themselves. And this would allow fracking operations away from people to continue, because they don't endanger anyone. I still don't think the economic points are valid (besides the ones relating to green energy) because considering local economies could have the power to not frack, a ban is unwarranted. Long termAlthough we disagree that shale is a bridge, my opponent makes a good case for me. Green energy is skyrocketing, it should naturally take over fracking. But as I stated before, green energy is about 3% of all energy created, it currently can't fulfill our needs in the same way fracking. Eventually it will be able to, but it cannot yet.My opponent says that losses will be 'absorbed' if fracking is banned, that doesn't really refute the fact that revenue, jobs, and GDP would all be hurt, some energy prices would likely increase and the US would lose exports. There are numerous obvious economic harms to a fracking ban. Health Haven't done that much research on this I will admit. But having restrictions on proximity of drilling sites to communities would reduce health risks from being close to drilling sites, as would towns having the power to ban fracking locally. Conclusion My opponent made a strong case, but he set his own burden very high. I think his arguments rely too much on non-environmental factors. The case on methane leakage is weak and can be regulated to fix. The case on water contamination is weak and can be fixed with regulation. Wastewater can be recycled to reduce the amount of water that is used (which isn't much, in the grand scheme of things) and the harmful waste can be safely disposed of. There are real C02 emission reduction benefits as an alternative to coal that would be lost with a ban. There are real and clear economic benefits from shale gas in terms of revenue and jobs that would be lost with a ban. With a ban, a cheaper, cleaner, and more convenient source of energy would be lost with no cleaner alternative to fulfill American energy needs now. Because my opponent failed to really refute regulatory alternatives or fulfill his high burden on demonstrating environmental harms, I think he should lose the debate. But you'll decide that for yourselves!Thanks for the debate, it was my first serious one against a high ELO opponent, and although I feel I could have done much better (especially if I had a better more topic) it was fun nonetheless. I hope to have more serious, in depth, education debates like this in the future.