N.B.: I am a new member. I recognize that this post might be better suited to a different forum. I’m sure list management will relocate it as appropriate.
At the moment, fracking has placed natural gas in the “time-buying” modality with respect to global climate change. It is seen by many as a preferable option, at least temporarily, to the continued exploitation of petroleum (as long as it lasts) and coal. Nevertheless, fracking has clearly demonstrated some serious side effects that many with a pro-fracking political/economic agenda often refuse to acknowledge or even discuss.
These side effects include, but are not limited to, localized geological instabilities that arguably lead to (a) changes in water table accessibility by existing potable water well installations; (b) pollution of potable water tables with fracking solution and/or with natural gas itself; and © localized, highly destructive sinkholes and seismic events — plus the unarguable fact that natural gas still contributes an unacceptable amount of carbon dioxide, in the long run, to the global greenhouse gas footprint (albeit significantly less than that of petroleum or coal).
No currently developing technology is standing still; it is evolving — even if evolving only to the extent that it can be made commercially more profitable. Looking forward to the mid-range future of fracking, therefore, begs the question: Which evolutionary track will fracking take over the next 10-20 years?
I foresee three possible avenues; there are probably more I haven’t thought of:
-
No further national regulatory action requiring congressional legislation will be taken due to the seemingly hopeless sociopolitical factionalism that has imposed a death-grip on our country and its government. Therefore, since commercial special interests (i.e., huge corporations and their Wall Street financiers) are basically running the country, fracking technology will continue to evolve only to the extent that it is made cheaper and more profitable, with no real progress made towards cleaning it up or restricting how it is deployed (except, of course, for the smiley-face “everybody wins” propaganda that is already being dispensed on television by the petroleum companies).
-
A sea-change political movement activated by the “silent majority” independent center in the U.S. (much as I hate to re-purpose Nixon’s historically dubious 1969 allegation) will finally dissolve the deadlock in Congress — hopefully forever — in favor of realism, practicality, science, and therefore sensible, workable solutions to our serious nationwide problems. This, in turn, will lead to full-speed federally funded dispassionate scientific research on fracking technology — followed quickly by sound, science-based recommendations for federal legislative action that can be passed without regard to special-interest financial agendas. Existing fracking operations will then be suitably upgraded or, if necessary, taken out of service altogether as required by newly enacted law.
-
Federal oversight over environmental regulation, having come to a virtually complete standstill, will be unilaterally taken over by various states. Citizens of those states whose political infrastructure is controlled by corporate and financial special interests will, at some point, have more attractive examples to look at in neighboring states. Based on the state citizens’ overall sense of commitment and drive, state political machines can be dissolved by state-level elections. Barring that, many citizens of these states will eventually vote with their feet and emigrate to other states where the quality of life is better protected. This evolution will ultimately reduce the tax base of the special-interest-based states to the point where continuing along the present über-corporate/Wall-Street trajectory is no longer fiscally viable, either for the states or the corporations.
This will, eventually, drive change, one state at a time. Current examples of this process are the state-driven initiatives regarding decriminalization of marijuana (medical or recreational), recognition of the constitutionality of same-sex marriage, and other “wedge” issues such as the currently-emerging contraception foofaraw. While state reclamation of control over such issues may drive more of a long-term than a mid-term outcome, it seems in many ways to be the most likely and the most realistic, given current sociopolitical trends in the U.S.
What do you think?
Ancillary remarks:
Somehow, we have reached a place in our history — or, arguably, a place where we have always been but which is now simply more clearly visible to more people — where the mass of what now constitutes America cannot be effectively governed by a single federal entity. Note that this is not a new problem; it existed in at least as great a measure at the 1787 Constitutional Convention as it does now — though some of the issues then were superficially different than those in the news today. (This is a big reason why the U.S. Constitution is, to this very day, the shortest national constitution in the world. The Founders of 1787 seemingly couldn’t solve these profound problems then any more than we seem to be able to solve them now.)
The nub of it is, we’ve pretty much run out of “solutions” and “compromises” to try — including a civil war in the 1860s, which, though resulting in some important constitutional amendments regarding slavery and civil rights, solved none of the underlying sociocultural problems that have plagued the U.S. since the country’s inception.
Broaching the idea of finally giving up on reconciliation of this troubled marriage of states with disparate cultures and interests, and opting finally for divorce (i.e., partition), has about the same response in most circles — left, right, or center — as loudly dropping the F-bomb in the middle of a decorous diplomatic reception. One way to dispassionately discuss this and other perhaps radical solutions to our national malady is to convene a new national constitutional convention, as provided for in Article V of the Constitution itself.