David Suzuki: Earthquakes and toxic wastewater are only part of the problem with fracking

    1 of 2 2 of 2

      At least 38 earthquakes in Northeastern B.C. over the past few years were caused by hydraulic fracturing (commonly called fracking), according to a report by the B.C. Oil and Gas Commission. Studies have found quakes are common in many places where that natural gas extraction process is employed.

      It’s not unexpected that shooting massive amounts of water, sand, and chemicals at high pressure into the earth to shatter shale and release natural gas might shake things up. But earthquakes aren’t the worst problem with fracking.

      Hydraulic fracturing requires massive amounts of water. Disposing of the toxic wastewater, as well as accidental spills, can contaminate drinking water and harm human health, and pumping wastewater into the ground can further increase earthquake risk. Gas leakage also leads to problems, even causing tap water to become flammable. In some cases, flaming tap water is the result of methane leaks from fracking, and methane is a far more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.

      Those are all serious cause for concern—but even they don’t pose the greatest threat from fracking. The biggest issue is that it’s just one more way to continue our destructive addiction to fossil fuels. As easily accessible oil, gas, and coal reserves become depleted, corporations have increasingly looked to “unconventional” sources, such as those in the tar sands or under deep water, or embedded in underground shale deposits.

      And so we end up with catastrophes such as the spill—and deaths of 11 workers—from the Deepwater Horizon blowout in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010. We turn a blind eye to the massive environmental devastation of the tar sands, including contamination of water, land, and air; destruction of the boreal forest; endangerment of animals such as caribou; and impacts on human health. We blast the tops off of mountains to get coal. We figure depleted water supplies, a few earthquakes, and poisoned water are the price we have to pay to maintain our fossil-fuelled way of life.

      As Bill McKibben points out, it didn’t have to be this way. “We could, as a civilization, have taken that dwindling supply and rising price as a signal to convert to sun, wind, and other noncarbon forms of energy,” he wrote in the New York Times Review of Books, adding that “it would have made eminent sense, most of all because it would have aided in the fight against global warming, the most difficult challenge the planet faces.”

      Some people, mostly from the fossil fuel industry, have argued that natural gas could be a “bridging” fuel while we work on expanding renewable energy development and capacity, by providing a source of energy with fewer greenhouse gas emissions when burned than coal and oil.

      But numerous studies, including one by the David Suzuki Foundation and the Pembina Institute, have found this theory to be extremely problematic. To begin, leaks of natural gas—itself a powerful greenhouse gas – and the methane that is often buried with it, contribute to global warming. Burning natural gas and the industrial activity required to extract and transport it also contribute to increased greenhouse gas emissions. As McKibben notes, the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research concluded that switching to natural gas “would do little to help solve the climate problem.”

      More than anything, continued and increasing investment in natural gas extraction and infrastructure will slow investment in, and transition to, renewable energy. Would companies that build gas-fired power plants be willing to shut them down, or pay the high cost of capturing and storing carbon, as the world gets serious about the need to dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions? Just as fossil fuels from conventional sources are finite and are becoming depleted, those from difficult sources will also run out. If we put all our energy and resources into continued fossil fuel extraction, we will have lost an opportunity to have invested in renewable energy.

      If we want to address global warming, along with the other environmental problems associated with our continued rush to burn our precious fossil fuels as quickly as possible, we must learn to use our resources more wisely, kick our addiction, and quickly start turning to sources of energy that have fewer negative impacts.

      For more insights from David Suzuki, please read Everything Under the Sun (Greystone Books/David Suzuki Foundation), by David Suzuki and Ian Hanington, now available in bookstores and online. This article was written with contributions from David Suzuki Foundation communications manager Ian Hanington. Learn more at www.davidsuzuki.org.

      Comments

      2 Comments

      K8Monster

      Sep 12, 2012 at 10:34am

      One point of discussion not addressed in this nor many other publications are the advantages of hydraulic fracturing in allowing the economic viability of natural gas over more traditional base load power supplies like coal and the immense technological effort and precision involved by engineers, geophysicists and environmentalists. However, we as a society have also developed a certain lifestyle, which most are unwilling to surrender or pay dramatically more for, and for better or worse, that lifestyle requires resources with which, in the near term, renewables cannot provide. I agree geothermal, solar, wind, and other technologies require attention and investment. However at the present time, storage and transmission problems are not only costly but also tremendously resource intensive and environmentally harmful. While a pipe dream, I long to see reporting in the media outlining cradle to grave analysis on technologies and their impact rather than the even increasing level of shallow journalism and incomplete pictures of both the bad and the good.

      Manuel Trindade

      Sep 18, 2012 at 7:20pm

      While I thoroughly admire and respect David Suzuki's work and life principles, I feel that this article misses a few crucial points.

      Renewable energy can still not provide for certain things that humans have grown to find indispensable such as air and land transportation (even electric and hydrogen cars are half a solution, as the production of most electricity still comes from coal or fossil fuels and hydrogen requires huge amounts of energy to maintain it in a liquid state, with higher pci).

      Fossil fuel production is still and always the most heavily subsidized industry in the world. If it wasn't so, the cost of most types of energy would sky-rocket. However, the dark side of the this is that the industry's lobby and political clout is second to none. If only half of what is spent in fossil fuels was spent in renewables, a quantum change would occur. Nothing short of a political revolution and of electoral systems is necessary for this to happen.

      Humankind's increasing obsession with meat production is driving deforestation and methane emissions through the roof. Food and raw materials inequality and poor distribution is rampant. There is enough food in the world to feed everyone and the some, just not the current western (highly unhealthy) diets and extreme meat consumption. Already Al Gore conveniently "forgot" to mention the meat and dairy industry as one of the major (if not The major) cause of GHG emissions, perhaps because his family is one of the large producers in the USA. Medical evidence is increasing and overwhelmingly saying that our addiction for meat is highly unhealthy and it is also creating large disruptions of the Earth's ecosystems, only to plant monocultures of soya and other cereals for meat for cattle fodder.

      Not to mention the waste society we live in, with more plastic production in one year than in most of human existence thus far, and the pervasive culture of throwing away, as if there was any away, forgetting that we live in a closed, finite system.

      That brings me to what is perhaps the single most important point of my post: the indispensable change that is needed in our political and economic system. Our economies are still firmly based on infinite growth, when we know since very long that this is utterly impossible in a finite system. Why do we insist on lunacy and self-destruction?

      Ego and individualism will have to give way to a more humane and holistic approach to life if we want to survive as a species, let alone thrive.

      Namaste, Manu