Natural gas has been touted as a "clean source" of energy, however there are serious environmental concerns about the process of extraction known as hydraulic fracturing, or hydro-fracking -- a process that involves pumping a combination of sand, water, and chemicals into the ground, creating cracks in shale rock, whereby natural gas can be extracted.
One concern is that the chemicals involved in the process can potentially contaminate nearby water supplies. There is also the issue of transporting these chemicals, with concerns about the consequences of an accident. In addition, there is the initial flaring of natural gas into the atmosphere. Furthermore, there are questions about proper disposal and storage of the wastewater created by this process.
There is serious debate over the ecological viability of hydro-fracking throughout North America, with concerns that any economic gains from the process are outweighed by the detrimental environmental consequences.
In New York state, there is controversy over the governor's decision to allow the practice. In New Jersey, the Senate passed legislation banning hydro-fracking altogether. In Canada, Quebec has placed a moratorium on further hydro-fracking until more stringent regulations are in place.
The most recent front in the controversy over this issue is New Brunswick, where the Progressive Conservative Premier David Alward hasrefused to ban the establishment of fracking operations in the province.
Economic development is important, but it cannot come at the expense of the environment. New Brunswick's natural vistas are a source of local pride, and overall environment -- including air and water quality -- are important contributing elements to quality of life. In a so-called "have not" province like New Brunswick, governments have often felt they had to prioritize economic development over environmental concerns -- however the consequences of such thinking can be overall detrimental.
In the mountainous Appalachian state of West Virginia, as well as in neighbouring mountainous regions of Kentucky and Tennessee, there is a process of mining for coal called mountaintop removal. This involves literally blasting mountaintops off as a cheaper and less labour-intensive alternative to mining for coal.
This practice has destroyed the landscape of the region, creating bleak moonscapes where scenic forested mountains once stood. Potential economic opportunities in eco-tourism have been destroyed, and also an important part of the region's identity.
Mountaintop removal creates airborne pollution as well as pollution of nearby waterways. Furthermore, slurry ponds are created to store the waste from this process; and breach of these slurry ponds -- which has happened -- has disastrous ecological consequences.
This example shows the consequences of profit trumping environmental conservation, and while hydro-fracking is a very different process than mountaintop removal, it highlights some of the concerns that have to be taken in New Brunswick in balancing environmental concerns with economic ones. The provincial government cannot think solely in dollar terms; it must account for quality of life factors, including the surrounding environment.
New Brunswick's official opposition Liberals have called for a moratorium on hydro-fracking until stricter regulations and government oversight (i.e. proper staff to oversee enforcement of regulations) are in place. They have raised concerns about potential damage to property, to the water supply, and to the environment.
"When it comes to developing our natural resources -- first, we must do no harm to our environment," New Brunswick Liberal leader Victor Boudreau stated, expressing an important sentiment regarding this issue. Where the Alward government has often seemed hesitant to take a firm stand on contentious issues, this firm stand by the Liberals is a favourable contrast.
It is important to consider the overall desirability and sustainability of hydro-fracking as well. A 60 Minutes story on fracking highlighted the uncertainty over whether problems with hydro-fracking are due solely to human error and corporate negligence, or if the practice overall carries serious risks such as contamination of nearby water supplies.
Would regulations and government oversight be enough? Should the practice be banned altogether?
These questions should be on the table in properly assessing the viability of hydro-fracking.
A year ago, Green Party leader Elizabeth May strongly condemned the exploration of shale gas -- which was then being considered in Quebec -- stating it was undesirable to "chase after these unsustainable forms of fossil fuel" and that instead, investment should be made in green sources of energy.
Ms. May raised concerns about the lack of scientific understanding of this issue, the large amount of water used, and overall concerns about contamination, stating "there are so many problems with this technology it really is not worth pursuing."
The New Brunswick Liberals' position is a positive start and hopefully marks a move towards greater emphasis on sustainable development and creating a provincial economy that is in harmony with the natural environment; something that would involve emphasis on green energy sectors and eco-tourism, among other things.
New Brunswickers need to protect their province and preserve it as a desirable and sustainable place to live. It is important to not allow economic calculus to trump environmental sustainability, which involves properly weighing whatever economic benefits there are of hydro-fracking with any serious environmental detriments -- and to consider if the practice is environmentally sustainable at all.
An earlier version of this article appeared in the Telegraph Journal; it has been revised for the Huffington Post.
Hassan Arif is a columnist with the Telegraph Journal in New Brunswick. He is a PhD candidate in urban sociology at the University of New Brunswick and has a background in law and political science. He can be reached at arif.telegraphjournal@gmail.com.
Follow Hassan Arif on Twitter: www.twitter.com/HassanNB
Hassan Arif: Saint John, NB's Urban Renewal Should Be Pedestrian and Eco-Friendly
Maliseet chief calls for hydro-fracking ban - New Brunswick - CBC News
Tim Scolnick | Apache Corp Pulls Out Of New Brunswick Gas Fracking ...
Tim Scolnick | New Brunswick Is Canada's Next Shale Gas Fracking ...
NO Fracking Way New Bruswick - The Petition Site
No fracking way: Ban hydraulic fracturing in Canada | rabble.ca
Shale gas drilling is like stepping off a curb. Mounttaintop removal coal mining is like stepping off a skyscraper.
1. The process befouls ground water. There isn't a drink of ground water left in Alberta that doesn't have sulphur taste that ranges from disgusting to absolutely undrinkable. And Alberta has yet to get to the shale extraction process to any serious degree.
2. Myth; everyone will get as rich as Alberta with shale gas extraction. Check the price of gas; it's too low to be profitable and will remain cheap because of the volume remaining in place like Alberta for a very, very long time. It's too low to be profitable and if it's delivered to consumers the delivery costs get flagged with tax and fluff-ons that make delivery costs the expensive part.
The effect is a cheaper tax overall ,without fraud and evasion by the super rich and all. and by the fact of making all fossil fuels "expensive" compared to before , will ensure full and proper use of it in all its uses throughout the consumer chain.
It would reduce the need of tax administration and accountants , as only carbon based companies would be collecting the taxes on the governments behalf.
A minimum wage for all, payable by the state to all, from the saving of the tax collection process to replace all welfare and pension and social needs, this would be paid to the indervidual and it would then be up to them how they would spend or save this money.
It is only in the recognition that it is ultimately the consumer who has the power to change the way we use carbon based fuels, and this would reduce radically our dependence on it , as this would change the mindset of everyone and businesses , into the way we all use and waste fuel.
The biggest savings are on the environment damage caused by the reduction in of mining or drilling the fossil fuels, but also on all the subsequent effects on the consumers change in purchasing low energy embedded products and goods that also consume low energy.
These companies will be there to share in on the gain, but will be long gone before the associated pain kicks in.
Welcome to the world of modern economics, if there's money to be made, it must be made, regardless of the cost, as we have becomes masters in reaping the benefits and passing on the costs to others.
I personally can't believe someone would throw the human race under a bus for more personal luxury, but alas, is happens every minute, of every day, in every country.
Welcome to the dark ages of economic 'prosperity'.
move to a carbon tax collected at source that replaces all existing taxes .