Join
Search

Science, Democracy and Fracking: People Have Questions and They Deserve Answers

Bookmark and Share

In late July, the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, in collaboration with UCLA, held a workshop and public forum on “Science, Democracy and Community Decisions on Fracking”. We organized the forum in response to the exponential growth of hydraulic fracturing for unconventional oil and natural gas that is transforming our energy economy.

Risky business

But this development is also transforming many of the communities where new fracking operations have sprung up, outpacing the comprehensive and reliable information on its impacts on our water, air, infrastructure and public health. The expansion of unconventional oil and gas development has been accompanied by a growing list of accidents and spills, though clear information is hard to come by and is often kept from public view by a variety of mechanisms from trade secrets to confidentiality agreements. And, there have been reports of harmful air and water pollution, climate, and health effects from fracking.

We’ve also heard from communities about the socio-economic impacts that are often associated with the kind of short-term economic growth that hydraulic fracturing for oil and gas can bring: lots of temporary workers moving to their towns, increased traffic, strains on housing and emergency services, for instance.

Some communities have gone forward with fracking despite not having a fuller picture of the risks it can present. Others have banned it outright. Still others have declared moratoria pending further study. In any case, the public debates on fracking have been largely fractious and polarized, with the science of what we do know often misrepresented or ignored.

Surveys of experts have noted a range of risks that come along with unconventional and weakly regulated oil and gas development. Those risks cannot be dismissed as industry, the public, communities, states and the federal government decide how our energy infrastructure will develop.

The Center for Science and Democracy saw a need to help shed light on an issue where much of the public still feels in the dark.

Diverse views

fracking-forum-audienceDuring our forum, we explored the science, regulatory environment and community engagement needs that arise from the vast potential for unconventional oil and gas development from shale resources in our country. A full recording of the public program is available on our website in case you missed the event, and a summary of the forum will be available in the coming weeks along with resources for communities confronting decisions on if, where, how and when to allow fracking in their locales. In the meantime we share with you our first impressions as the organizers of the event.

We brought together scientists, policy and legal specialists, community organizers and environmental and social justice advocates, industry advisers and local and state officials for our working groups. Our goal was to have a broad range of perspectives, rather than push for consensus on issues where a lot of uncertainty remains. This led to an open, wide-ranging, civil discussion among participants, on a polarizing and contentious issue. Many of our working group participants had never met before, and it was their first opportunity to be among such diverse expertise and experiences.

One community organizer said, “People in our community are asking real questions about health and safety for their families and neighborhoods. They want to know what’s going on. And it seems to me that they deserve answers, but don’t know who to turn to.” We agree. It is not only reasonable but the responsible thing to do in our democratic society to ask questions about issues that affect you and your neighbors. Parents concerned about their children, workers concerned about their safety, and all who are concerned about the environment in which we live. That isn’t an activist perspective: it is democracy at work, the right to question openly. And to us this captures the essence of the problems and controversy around the development of unconventional oil and gas resources: there are lots of questions and preciously few answers. And while the expert discussions at the forum made it clear that there are lots of knowledge gaps we need to fill with robust and conclusive data, lack of information does not imply safety around unconventional oil and gas development. In fact, all energy choices come with their own set of risks. It is up to an informed public to decide which risks are worth taking and which one not..

Rightful questions

Our working groups raised some probing questions: What is the fate of toxic chemicals in waste products including water and air emissions from unconventional oil and gas development? Why don’t we have comprehensive monitoring before during and after development and production for all drill sites? Who should pay for it? How do we ensure that research is being done on the impacts of development activities across a range of issues? How can we ensure that public health analysis and monitoring is in place?

The participants also considered the implications of unconventional oil and gas development on climate, and on our progress on low and carbon-neutral sources of energy. While there is much that is still unknown, we do know that methane leakage is a major issue causing water and air pollution with attendant public health and safety impacts. We also know methane is a powerful heat-trapping gas that is a major factor in accelerating global warming. So by no means does the expansion of natural gas production serve as a panacea for our energy problems.

How can we use the existing regulatory and policy tools we have available to greater effect, to manage the risks to public health and safety from development? We know how to do this in other industrial sectors, why not this one? How do we strike a balance between the needs of companies to protect intellectual property and trade secrets and the need for transparency for everyone from first responders to fence line communities? What is the strongest and most efficient combination of federal, state and local government roles to manage the risks of development and production? How can we convince our lawmakers to close loopholes in major federal environmental laws to prevent oil and gas industry from enjoying unprecedented regulatory exemptions? How do these unconventional resources fit into an ongoing energy policy?

The need for a comprehensive effort for managing the risks of unconventional oil and gas production is very clear as those risks are manifest at local to regional to national levels, as well as the climate impacts that are a global risk. All of our public agencies need to take on this challenge, from local land use, to state and federal environmental management and protection officials. We urgently need a real national energy policy to transition to energy efficiency, and renewable and low-carbon sources as quickly as possible, while recognizing that natural gas and tight oil are not a long-term solution.

Where can communities and policy makers at all levels obtain truly independent science advice? How can people find out answers to their questions? And fundamentally, how can we engender trust by people and communities in industry and government, particularly given the distrust built up to date?

Next steps

Sunshine is sometimes said to be the best disinfectant. It is also the best way to start building trust between industry, government and the public. Of course being open, transparent and inclusive is hard. But it is the only way that communities will be able to express their concerns and have their questions answered.

Going into the forum, we weren’t expecting to immediately solve these complex issues, but we are heartened by the path we’ve forged, and the many critical questions the meeting triggered. There are no easy answers to these questions, and no single view of what should happen in the course of development. But the participants all agreed on the need for more and better information, a transparent process, regular monitoring and enforcement of safety provisions. And all agreed on the need to build trust and respect, and above all, to ensure that the public health and safety trump trade secrets and non-disclosure.

There will be much more detailed information coming out of the forum and our ongoing work, including an analytical report on the barriers to information on hydraulic fracturing, and an information and resource toolkit for communities faced with touch decisions on fracking. Unconventional oil and gas development is proceeding at a blistering pace all around the country, and many questions remained unanswered. We call on the academic and governmental scientific communities, and our legislators and elected officials, to listen closely to the needs and questions of their communities, and help us find answers, before, not after, decisions are made.

NOTE: This post was coauthored by Andrew Rosenberg and Pallavi Phartiyal, Senior Analyst and Program Manager, Center for Science and Democracy.

Posted in: Energy, Fossil Fuels, Global Warming, Science and Democracy, Vehicles Tags: , , , , ,

About the author: Andrew Rosenberg is the director of the UCS Center for Science and Democracy. He leads UCS's efforts to advance the essential role that science, evidence-based decision making, and constructive debate play in American policy making. See Andrew's full bio.

Support from UCS members make work like this possible. Will you join us? Help UCS advance independent science for a healthy environment and a safer world.

  • Larry Sanazaro

    The Hirsch report, the commonly referred to name for the report Peaking of World Oil Production: Impacts, Mitigation, and Risk Management, was created by request for the US Department of Energy and published in February 2005. As of 2010, it was estimated that 60% of all new oil and gas wells worldwide were being hydraulically fractured. That year (2005) the Clean Water Act (CWA) was changed to protect oil companies from liability concerning polluting our water. My guess is that one of the three mitigations scenarios suggested in the Hirsch report was justification to change the CWA and to begin mass fracking across the nation. As of 2012, 2.5 million hydraulic fracturing jobs have been performed on oil and gas wells worldwide, more than one million of them in the United States.

    Mitigations:
    - Waiting until world oil production peaks before taking crash program action leaves the world with a significant liquid fuel deficit for more than two decades.
    - Initiating a mitigation crash program 10 years before world oil peaking helps considerably but still leaves a liquid fuels shortfall roughly a decade after the time that oil would have peaked.
    - Initiating a mitigation crash program 20 years before peaking appears to offer the possibility of avoiding a world liquid fuels shortfall for the forecast period.

    If this is any where close to the truth, wouldn’t it better to inform the public openly of this dire situation so that other important measures might also be implemented. There is a big picture here that involves more than just profit. What we really need to recognize is that there is a planetary emergency which connects many areas that need addressing: Water, Climate Change, Population, Pollution, Peak Oil, the Economy, our Democracy, our Government (partisan gridlocked), our Civil Rights, and Education … All of which are in crisis mode. It seems to me that keeping the public in the dark will do nothing more than to allow the most detrimental behaviors to continue, when what we really need is the power of the people to work together to solve the problems we face.

  • Lisa Wright

    Hello, Drs. Rosenberg and Phartiyal,

    The speakers at the National Academy of Science’s recent forum on unconventional shale-gas will seem to agree with UCS’s conclusion that in regards to fracking issues, more data and research is needed.

    But what is one to do when scientists, engineers and other professionals are – in many cases, reluctantly—thrown into the spotlight for having the temerity to question the talking points of the shale-gas industry, and are hammered by those government and business interests who use misleading talking points such as “ there are no documented cases of water contamination” and “the chemicals used in fracking fluids are safe?”

    Or when shale-gas industry media/outreach groups like Energy in Depth and self-appointed pro-shale-gas pundits like Michael Levi of the Council on Foreign Relations resort to personal attacks on the very professionals working hard to wrap their minds around these difficult issues? See: “Expert on Ingraffea NYT Op-Ed: ‘Is There Value in Debating People Who Don’t Want To Think?’”

    http://energyindepth.org/marcellus/expert-on-ingraffea-nyt-op-ed-is-there-value-in-debating-people-who-dont-think/

    There is no room, apparently, for civil debate, or open scientific exchange of ideas. The spirit of collegiality has been overtaken by the need to quash any and all science and scientists who dare ask the inconvenient questions that UCS and NAS want answered.

    Suddenly NOAA has become the latest whipping boy for Michael Levi and Energy in Depth. http://energyindepth.org/mtn-states/noaas-one-day-of-data-fails-to-quiet-critics/

    It is a good time to remember the Climate Change and the Integrity of Sciences statement signed by members of the National Academy of Sciences in 2010:

    “We are deeply disturbed by the recent escalation of political assaults on scientists in general and on climate scientists in particular.”

    And:

    “Scientific conclusions derive from an understanding of basic laws supported by laboratory experiments, observations of nature, and mathematical and computer modeling. Like all human beings, scientists make mistakes, but the scientific process is designed to find and correct them.”

    I would hope you would agree that we all would benefit if the level of discourse on shale-gas was elevated beyond personal attacks against scientists by media pundits and the fossil fuel industry.

    Thank you,

    Lisa Wright

Comment Policy

UCS welcomes comments that foster civil conversation and debate. To help maintain a healthy, respectful discussion, please focus comments on the issues, topics, and facts at hand, and refrain from personal attacks. Posts that are commercial, obscene, rude or disruptive will be removed.

Please note that comments are open for two weeks following each blog post. When commenting, you must use your real name. Valid email addresses are required. (UCS respects your privacy; we will not display, lend, or sell your email address for any reason.)