Be it resolved that hydraulic fracturing be banned from the USA

So before I launch into my first point, I'd like to talk about the Precautionary Principle. Essentially, it states that if an action or policy is suspected of causing some harm to either the public or the environment, then the burden of proof lies mostly on proving the lack of a harm. It's a principle used by policy markers when scientific knowledge is either lacking or uncertain, and it implies a basic level of social responsibility to protect the public from harm. I think we can all agree that, at the end of the day, those harms are the most important to consider, whether from an economic, environmental or health standpoint. Therefore, the burden of proof is on Con in this debate. He must prove either that fracking can cause no demonstrable harm to humans, or that the restrictions he presents will adequately protect human beings from any and all such harms. Now, starting on my points. One of the most well-known problems with this is groundwater contamination. In 2008, a hydrologist found benzene in a water well in Wyoming above where fracking was occurring. [1] There is a tremendous amount of film available showing that flammable gas is leaking through dinking water pipes, which poses a dramatic risk to homes and their inhabitants. [2] Lives are placed at risk, as well as livelihoods. But Con will probably say that his restrictions solve for all this. Sadly, that is wrong. This problem results from two key problems that aren't going to be solved by the regulations he's proposed. The first of these is that the fluids used fracking are considered to be proprietary formulas. [3] Most companies don't disclose nearly enough information on the chemicals used in fracking. [4] Include all of the regulations he's stated in R2, and you don't get around this. They will still be injecting these chemicals into the ground at high pressure. Some of them will go into groundwater sources, even with the best regulations, since we don't know where all of them are, since extensive techniques must commonly be used to be certain. [5] The second problem is how it's done. The process of injection is mostly safe when the wellbores are constructed strongly, but the injection itself is meant to send large amounts of chemicals outward into porous soil, from which it cannot possibly all be recovered. [6] Hell, porous rock is normally required at the point of injection. [7] In other words, it's a part of the process. Unless Con means to institute an effectual ban by regulating them out of using a process necessary to continue fracking, he's simply not solving for this. Onto another point that is commonly known to be associated with fracking: earthquakes. Con's own #3 actually supports my point here quite well. It provides all the background I could ever need on how fracking has led to earthquakes at a number of different locations, something that Con actually concedes. [8] He simply says that he can solve for this. Of course, that ignores much of what the article itself says: "Drillers inject high-pressure fluids into a hydraulic fracturing well, making slight fissures in the shale that release natural gas. The wastewater that flows back up with the gas is then transported to disposal wells, where it is injected deep into porous rock. Scientists now believe that the pressure and lubrication of that wastewater can cause faults to slip and unleash an earthquake. "[8] "Too much wastewater in a disposal well forces liquid downward and outward, he adds. It can meander for months, creeping into unknown faults and prying the rock apart just enough to release pent-up energy. "[8] Remember all those nice regulations Con touts? Well, one of the current ones is disposal of fracking fluid. It's done by injection, which can cause earthquakes. [6] Again, Con would have to remove an integral piece of how fracking works to solve for this. Now, let's talk air pollution. I'm not saying that oil or coal are good, but natural gas is, at best, no better, and at worst, dramatically worse. Recent studies have shown that methane, a more potent greenhouse gas, is leaking out of the soil and into the air from many of these wells. [9] This leakage is thought, again, to result from the porosity of soil, which allows gas to travel through it in the event that the rock around that gas is disrupted. That's exactly what fracking is supposed to do. It's only a short term solution, as the amount of natural gas available to be fracked is still limited. It also releases CO2 when burned, producing a smaller but still substantial amount of the greenhouse gas. The biggest effect, however, is one that is not direct. The price of natural gas is so low that many companies are simply abandoning renewable energy alternatives. [10] It's gone so far that natural gas " a resource-limited, carbon dioxide-emitting fuel source " is being rebranded as green energy by the European Union! [11] So sure, putting aside the methane emissions, may be we benefit from lower carbon dioxide emissions. But the reality is that it's pushing back our progress in biofuels and green energy, which means we're just going to keep burning for longer. It's a net detriment in the long term. But let's go back to the Precautionary Principle, because what we know isn't all that matters here. Most companies engaging in fracking is currently exempt from the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Safe Drinking Water Act. Con hasn't stated that he would force them to adhere, so they're being held to a different standards than literally every other industry. They deny many scientists access to the wells to actively prevent us from understanding the impacts of fracking. They even go so far as to use lawsuits to prevent what information does come out from being disclosed. [12, 13] Unfortunately, I don't have the space to fully address Con's economic points here, so I'll leave that for the next round. For the time being, I'll simply state two things. First, any economic benefit is transient at best and actually causes more harm in the long term. And second, the environmental and health harms are always going to outweigh due to the long-term impacts they create. Even billions of dollars are not worth a devastating earthquake and people poisoned by their own drinking water. With that, I return this debate to my opponent's hands to refute my case and build on his. 1. . http://www.npr.org... 2. www. scientificamerican. com/article. cfm? id=natural-gas-make-water-burn 3. . http://www.psr.org... 4. . http://twon.tamu.edu... 5. . http://water.usgs.gov... 6. . http://www.scribd.com... 7. . http://twon.tamu.edu... 8. . http://www.motherjones.com... 9. . http://www.nature.com... 10. www. greenoptimistic. com/2012/10/31/biofuel-companies-miss-the-point-turn-to-natural-gas/#. UymwC4W-jC4 11. . http://www.livescience.com... 12. . http://www.theguardian.com... 13. . http://www.ucsusa.org...