Fascinating Inconsistency

Increased extraction of natural gas can reduce dependence on both coal and oil. The advantage of this is that natural gas contains smaller amounts of harmful substances and releases less carbon dioxide.

No, I haven’t gone and become a convinced natural gas advocate, but despite everything, the fact is that of three unsustainable choices, natural gas is the best. However, because natural gas is both a fossil fuel and a finite resource, I still don’t see it as a very enticing option. After having seen Vetenskapens Värld — The World of Science — on TV this week, I am furthermore convinced that my skeptical attitude is sound.

In the program that was aired, enthusiastic geologist Iain Stewart traveled around in America to find out facts and opinions on this form of energy that is now prominent in the U.S. and is obtained through a method called fracking. This method involves drilling deep holes in the bedrock in order to then — with a lot of pressure — split the hard shale with water and chemicals to release the natural gas. It is difficult to not be fascinated by how people can develop methods that allow us to access energy even thousands of meters below the Earth’s surface, but along Iain Stewart’s journey through the United States, another fascination surfaced: How is it possible that people are allowed to do this without the demand for them to supply answers about the method’s consequences?

The first fracking facilities “over there” were built in what people call wasteland. Few worried themselves over it, and when legislation was written, the environment was not a very important factor. Since then, the plants have spread out and are now in more densely populated areas, which has led to problems — namely, that people have gotten sick.

The evidence is apparently still missing that this could have to do with fracking, but in his documentary, Iain Stewart showed us well water that had become undrinkable because of high levels of methane, the primary ingredient of natural gas. Besides suspicions of gas leaks, there is also worry over the chemicals used in the process spreading through the groundwater.

The companies that benefit from the new energy source don’t want to hear about problems, and when it involves people getting sick, the company boards of directors say that it’s all made up. At the same time, they’re apparently aware that the things they’re doing are dangerous; they refuse to talk about what chemicals are used in the process.

Sitting in front of my TV, I shake my head and wonder how it is even possible to be able to run operations where you have the right to keep secret what chemicals you’re spraying into the bedrock, and this, in a country that’s absurd when it comes to other forms of security. To protect its people from terrorist attacks, travelers have to take off their shoes for security and have their bodies scanned with the goal of stopping someone whose intent is to kill himself and take others with him. In the same country, those who are looking for cheap energy are allowed to do that with methods that can mean, like a terrorist on a plane, taking people on a risky journey toward poorer health and maybe, in the long run, a shorter life.

With that said, if and when fracking facilities are built in the EU, there must be demands — very high demands.