It's hard to argue with hundreds of billions of dollars and oil-addict America becoming a net exporter.

Here’s what’s happening with natural gas vs coal, I assume at least partly attributable to fracking: http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/07/the-hu...

At least they're upfront about their biases. More than you can say for much other "journalism".

A facile prejudice against fracking has proven an excellent litmus test to identify dilletante pseudo-environmentalists. It's an indication they have no clue what they are talking about and also don't consider carbon emissions a serious problem.

Many studies have been done on fracking, and there is every indication that with sound regulation and proper practices it is a perfectly safe technique for extracting natural gas. More so, using natural gas for energy instead of oil or especially coal is an enormous carbon emissions win. Far greater than any hybrid or even all electric vehicle technology can achieve. To write it off as an evil because you heard some anecdotal evidence somewhere just proves you don't take the fundamental problems of energy production and the environment seriously.

I'm not sure what your qualifications are to reply as you did, but I doubt it's on par with Arthur Berman, a petroleum geologist and editorial board member of The Oil Drum. His views are quite different than yours.

Here's an interview he did on the Kunstlercast: http://kunstlercast.com/shows/kunstlercast-192-arthur-e-berm...

Ah yes, argument from authority. Were you on a debate team in school perchance? Should we compare the height of our piles of note cards and references to see who wins?

Your argument would be stronger if it were framed as an actual argument backed by evidence instead of in the form "well mr. So-and-so is an expert and he says..."

There are many ways in which you can argue against fracking on an environmental basis.

But one is really abouve all: natural gas is a fossil fuel and burning of fossil fuels leads to climate change. The costly investment on this harmful energy source is much more needed in renewables.

Unfortunately climate change science has been distorted in the media.

> natural gas is a fossil fuel and burning of fossil fuels leads to climate change.

We are going to burn something. Better it be natural gas than oil or coal.

I guess at some point in the future we'll have lots of nuclear power and won't need to burn anything, but right now we do.

Natural gas is the cleanest energy source we have, in some ways even cleaner than nuclear.

We're not going to get to 100% carbon-free energy sources overnight. Continued use of fossil fuels in the near-term is a fact of life. Natural gas technology is well developed, highly capable, and already economically competitive with coal and oil. If carbon emissions are an existential threat to humanity, to any degree, we would be stupid not to take advantage of natural gas in the here and now. Switching from gas/diesel/kerosene to natural gas is a >20% reduction in carbon emissions per unit of energy. Switching from coal is a 60% reduction.

And natural gas is also better for human health and overall environmental quality since the emissions are almost pure CO2 and H2O without a risk of acid rain, particulates, or radioactive fly ash. Being able to make such huge environmental gains in the short-term at very minimal economic cost is as much of a no brainer as these things get.

You are blowhard and moron.

I was a bit shocked by that. Not sure I would want Fracking to be the engine driving my economic growth — you're trading a financial crisis for a potentially massive environmental catastrophe.

Don't judge them too harshly. Fracking isn't clearly bad or good. As the article pointed out: coal is worse.

Natural gas is also much easier to store than coal and gas turbines have much shorter startup times. Thus Natural gas provides an excellent base power to complement renewable energy.

So while I am sure many would prefer a direct to renewable energy situation, natural gas is fine too.

In what way is natural gas easier to store than coal? Coal can just sit in huge piles on the ground.

True, but what happens once the coal is a pile? Unless said pile is being turned into a giant bonfire it will need further transportation.

This means big machines and their operators. It means trucks, trains, barges, and yet more drivers.

Gas needs storage tanks and pipelines. Ignoring maintenance the entire chain from well head to plant can be automated. A trans-continental coal conveyor belt would look nice on a popular mechanic's cover page but would never compare to what already exists for natural gas.

Granted natural gas' infrastructure is capital intensive. Yet in exchange for this capital you get a transportation network that functions like a classic graph flow problem.

After watching the film Gaslands, fracking should leave you scared. It paints fracking as a greed driven, accident waiting to happen.

http://www.gaslandthemovie.com/

It's a movie filled with lies and shouldn't be taken as a serious documentary.

For instance when the guy sets fire to gas coming out of his tap it is assumed that it is caused by fracking, but the movie doesn't tell you that these things happen naturally also in areas without any gas drilling.

Take a look at this video: http://www.fightgaslandcensorship.com/

There are lots of independent sources that back up the details presented in the film:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_fracturing_in_the_Uni...

Also if the fracking process is so safe why did they have ask for and get special exemption from the Safe Drinking Water Act?

Isn't that the tradeoff? You either join the circle of people selling each other insurance, or you get a real job.