The two agendas against tracking
Published in the Boulder Daily Camera, 8/25/13
Last May, the Denver Business Journal reported that Denver had been ranked by a trade publication as having the third brightest future for oil and gas careers. When I read that, I assumed that the cities ahead of Denver were places like Houston and Dallas. Then I read more carefully -- Denver wasn't third in the United States but third in the world, right behind Dubai and Calgary, and, as such, first in the United States as the place to be if your business is oil and gas. This week, CU's Leeds School of Business reported that Colorado's oil and gas industry supported 110,000 Colorado jobs in 2012 and generated $29.6 billion of economic activity. These items make a strong case that Denver is now Ground Zero for America's oil and gas industry. Given that the United States has more active drilling rigs than the rest of the world combined, one might argue that Denver is on its way to becoming the center of the oil and gas universe.
Boulder, 30 miles from Denver, is, arguably, Ground Zero for the fight against the technology that made this oil and gas revolution possible -- fracking. Without fracking, the astounding growth in western America's oil and gas production over the past few years would not have happened and the specter of "peak oil" would still be a sound argument for renewables. Instead, politicians are now talking about American "energy independence" without having to cross their fingers behind their backs.
It should surprise no one that both supporters and detractors of this evolving fracking technology are right next to one another in Denver and Boulder. Coloradans are the people most directly affected by this ongoing energy revolution and, as such, we're the ones paying the closest attention. Given Boulder's extraordinary green streak and the high value we place on our quality of life, we wouldn't be doing our job if we didn't ask a lot of hard questions about fracking and how it will affect the environment -- both our own and that of our planet. And we have been doing just that for the past two years. Cities across Boulder County have or are considering bans on fracking and Boulder County has a moratorium in place.
What has become clear over these past few years is that two different agendas drive opposition to fracking. These agendas are fundamentally different, though not mutually exclusive.
The first agenda against fracking centers around the desire for local-control to address quality of life and health concerns. Colorado State government has near complete control of oil and gas drilling and there is almost nothing local governments can do to affect what goes on in their neighborhood. Drilling is noisy and sometimes causes the release of unwelcome gases, such as methane. There are other concerns, such as the effects of fracking on groundwater quality, that have yet to find solid scientific support, but, fracking technology is still new and it's understandable that people remain skeptical as we gain experience with it.
People whose agenda is to get more control over drilling within their communities have a good point. As fracking technology is maturing, why should our state prohibit local governments from exerting control over things that may affect their quality of life? There are still plenty of other good places available to drill outside of our cities and towns. Why not give local government some say in what goes on at home, especially during fracking's early years?
The second agenda against fracking centers around the issue of global warming caused by carbon emissions from fossil fuel. Proponents of this agenda believe that fracking will lead to cheaper and more available oil and gas, which will inevitably slow down our evolution to a carbon-free world. No doubt that's true.
There are two problems with this agenda. First, the reality is that people will continue to use oil and gas well into the future and Coloradans are not likely to kill a technology that creates jobs and stops Americans from buying overseas what we can produce at home. Second, America's CO2 emissions have fallen 13 percent in the past five years, primarily because fracking allowed many coal-fired electricity plants to convert to gas, just as Boulder is proposing to do under municipalization. It's easy to understand the frustration of environmentalists who suddenly find themselves in a world of abundant carbon-based energy, but Pandora's Box is open, and it's hard to see where this agenda will yield any meaningful changes.
When standing in opposition, it always helps to consider what you stand for.
Last May, the Denver Business Journal reported that Denver had been ranked by a trade publication as having the third brightest future for oil and gas careers. When I read that, I assumed that the cities ahead of Denver were places like Houston and Dallas. Then I read more carefully -- Denver wasn't third in the United States but third in the world, right behind Dubai and Calgary, and, as such, first in the United States as the place to be if your business is oil and gas. This week, CU's Leeds School of Business reported that Colorado's oil and gas industry supported 110,000 Colorado jobs in 2012 and generated $29.6 billion of economic activity. These items make a strong case that Denver is now Ground Zero for America's oil and gas industry. Given that the United States has more active drilling rigs than the rest of the world combined, one might argue that Denver is on its way to becoming the center of the oil and gas universe.
Boulder, 30 miles from Denver, is, arguably, Ground Zero for the fight against the technology that made this oil and gas revolution possible -- fracking. Without fracking, the astounding growth in western America's oil and gas production over the past few years would not have happened and the specter of "peak oil" would still be a sound argument for renewables. Instead, politicians are now talking about American "energy independence" without having to cross their fingers behind their backs.
It should surprise no one that both supporters and detractors of this evolving fracking technology are right next to one another in Denver and Boulder. Coloradans are the people most directly affected by this ongoing energy revolution and, as such, we're the ones paying the closest attention. Given Boulder's extraordinary green streak and the high value we place on our quality of life, we wouldn't be doing our job if we didn't ask a lot of hard questions about fracking and how it will affect the environment -- both our own and that of our planet. And we have been doing just that for the past two years. Cities across Boulder County have or are considering bans on fracking and Boulder County has a moratorium in place.
What has become clear over these past few years is that two different agendas drive opposition to fracking. These agendas are fundamentally different, though not mutually exclusive.
The first agenda against fracking centers around the desire for local-control to address quality of life and health concerns. Colorado State government has near complete control of oil and gas drilling and there is almost nothing local governments can do to affect what goes on in their neighborhood. Drilling is noisy and sometimes causes the release of unwelcome gases, such as methane. There are other concerns, such as the effects of fracking on groundwater quality, that have yet to find solid scientific support, but, fracking technology is still new and it's understandable that people remain skeptical as we gain experience with it.
People whose agenda is to get more control over drilling within their communities have a good point. As fracking technology is maturing, why should our state prohibit local governments from exerting control over things that may affect their quality of life? There are still plenty of other good places available to drill outside of our cities and towns. Why not give local government some say in what goes on at home, especially during fracking's early years?
The second agenda against fracking centers around the issue of global warming caused by carbon emissions from fossil fuel. Proponents of this agenda believe that fracking will lead to cheaper and more available oil and gas, which will inevitably slow down our evolution to a carbon-free world. No doubt that's true.
There are two problems with this agenda. First, the reality is that people will continue to use oil and gas well into the future and Coloradans are not likely to kill a technology that creates jobs and stops Americans from buying overseas what we can produce at home. Second, America's CO2 emissions have fallen 13 percent in the past five years, primarily because fracking allowed many coal-fired electricity plants to convert to gas, just as Boulder is proposing to do under municipalization. It's easy to understand the frustration of environmentalists who suddenly find themselves in a world of abundant carbon-based energy, but Pandora's Box is open, and it's hard to see where this agenda will yield any meaningful changes.
When standing in opposition, it always helps to consider what you stand for.