Stockton, N. (2015, September 19). Fracking’s Problems Go Deeper Than Water Pollution. Retrieved November 23, 2015, from http://www.wired.com/2015/06/frackings-problems-go-deeper-water-pollution/

It has been discovered that 20-40% of the injected fluids underground used for fracking come back up to the surface and can potentially damage the Environment. Fracking took off in 2005 because the EPA though that the injected chemicals would stay deep underground and come back up. This leads to contaminated water, earthquakes, more burned fossil fuels and methane released into the atmosphere.

All of the negative consequences linked to fracking are scary and dangerous and potentially very costly and I think they should be extremely limited to protect the safety of our drinking water, air to breathe and the ground we walk on. The last thing the U.S. needs is to burn more fossil fuels and fracking makes that easier. Also, if we want to transition to clean energy, fracking must be cut back on heavily.

Neuhauser, A. (2015, August 4). Rankings & Advice News U.S. News Home. Retrieved November 23, 2015, from http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/06/04/epa-fracking-tainted-drinking-water-but-problems-not-widespread

The Environmental Protection Agency said that Fracking can have an effect on the quality of drinking water and it has contaminated large amounts of drinking water but that it hasn’t had a major widespread affect like many environmentalists say it will. The goal of the study was to figure out how to best protect water sources and that the findings are useful to protecting the water we drink.

I Think that even though the effect isn’t extremely widespread, it is quite dangerous to risk polluting our water with dangerous chemical contaminants. Especially in areas that need all the water they can get like California, injecting chemicals into the ground isn’t a great idea in the interest of protecting people.

4.7 magnitude earthquake strikes Oklahoma – USGS. (2015, November 19). Retrieved November 23, 2015, from https://www.rt.com/usa/322664-earthquake-strikes-cherokee-oklahoma/

A recent earthquake in Kansas has been linked to the environmental effects of fracking. The number of medium-large sized earthquakes has gone up nearly 600% in Kansas in just one year and its is now 600 times the historical average. Many scientists say the only reasonable explanation for this is fracking which umps chemicals into the ground and can destabilize it, making it more prone to earthquakes.

I think this is another major example of the negative effects fracking can have on the environment. In areas that are prone to earthquakes, fracking should be extremely limited or reduced because it can threaten the lives of many people. It is quite scary that these “natural disasters” might not be so natural and actually manmade after all in some cases.

Bryce, R., & Hayward, S. (2015, November 12). How fracking killed Keystone (and is saving the climate): Column. Retrieved November 23, 2015, from http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/11/09/keystone-oil-sands-fracking-obama-climate-change-column/75422888/

This article argues that the federal government helped to create the fracking boom and that fracking ruined the Keystone XL pipeline. The U.S. has cut carbon emissions by fracking and reducing the price of gas to burn which has helped protect the environment by reducing carbon emissions. Many environmentalists disagree and argue that fracking destroys the ground and pollutes water as well as the air.

I feel that fracking has not ruined the Keystone XL pipeline and that the author is incorrect. Also, making natural gas cheaper wouldn’t reduce carbon emissions, it would increase them because it is easier to burn fossil fuels that ruin the ozone. It is a complicated issue on which much more research needs to be done in order to fully understand how fracking affects all parts of the environment and the economy.

Hertsgaard, M. (2014, June 17). Fracking California: Can Jerry Brown be a climate leader if he does not oppose fracking? Retrieved August 23, 2015, from http://kalw.org/post/fracking-california-can-jerry-brown-be-climate-leader-if-he-does-not-oppose-fracking

            This article discusses how California Governor Jerry Brown must balance his commitment to using more renewable energy with the opportunity for large economic gain from the billions of barrels of oil underground in California. The point is raised that Brown may not be considered a climate leader if he cannot oppose fracking, an environmentally unfriendly practice of extracting oil from deep underground.  Ultimately, Jerry Brown must come up with a solution that both benefits California’s economy as well as protects the environment.

            California, a state known for its leading role in protecting the environment, is in a tough position where state officials must choose whether to continue to create a positive environmentally friendly precedent for the rest of the country by not allowing fracking or whether to capitalize on over $100 billion of oil buried in California’s rich ground. I feel that California should not frack to extract this oil but instead, set a positive example for how to protect the environment.

Does fracking cause quakes? California needs to know. (2014, April 20). Retrieved August 23, 2015, from http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-fracking-20140420-story.html

             Recent studies show fracking can cause earthquakes, and has been linked to multiple small earthquakes in Los Angeles. Originally, it was believed earthquakes were only caused by the reinjection of the waste water into wells in the ground but earthquakes have since been linked to fracking in areas where reinjection does not occur. It is possible that this minor seismic activity could release pressure and prevent a big quake but it could also make everything worse.

            Earthquakes are a very dangerous and prevalent natural disaster for all people on the west coast. If fracking does expedite or amplify the possibility of a major earthquake, it is putting millions of lives at risk and shouldn’t be done until the effect it has on quakes is studied further and the practice is deemed safe. This is one more drawback fracking has on the environment that must be studied further before the practice continues.

G, M. (2014, August 1). Fracking Makes California’s Drought Worse. Retrieved July 17, 2015, from http://ecowatch.com/2014/08/01/fracking-california-drought/

            Fracking has three major threats that worsen the drought in California and could lead to more droughts in the future. Fracking uses a ridiculous amount of water that can reach millions of gallons of drinkable California water every month. Secondly, fracking fluid can drip underground into aquifers with drinking water, contaminating them and rendering them useless. Thirdly, the waste that is burned contributes to global warming and can cause droughts further down the road as well as extending the current one.

            Fracking is a major threat to the environment that will worsen the drought and cause global warming to continue. In the case of California, fracking is not totally necessary to keep oil prices low and can be avoided offshore in California to avoid damaging people and wildlife. I think the article provides valid points as to how fracking both directly and indirectly makes the drought worse, something that cannot happen without major consequences for the people and wildlife of California.

Carrol, R. (2014, December 4). Environmental Group Lawsuit Targets Offshore Fracking in California. Retrieved August 23, 2015, from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/04/california-fracking-lawsuit_n_6272980.html

            An environmentalist group has threatened to sue the federal government in 60 days unless oil companies halt the fracking off the California coast in order to investigate the impact it has on the environment, specifically endangered marine life like blue whales and otters. Worries have raised that fracking offshore without testing the effects it will have on the environment is risky because an oil or chemical spill could have tragic ramifications.

            Fracking is a risky business and poses even more of a threat without researching the potential effects beforehand. It is quite understandable to be angry at the Government for allowing such toxic practices to occur without evaluating the polluting effects in areas with endangered marine life. I think the fracking should be halted because of the unknown threats it may pose. In this case, the oil companies should do the right thing for the environment and halt their fracking off the shore of California until more is known.

California Senate Approves Bill Requiring Oil Industry to Detail Water Use. (2014, August 28). Retrieved July 23, 2015, fromhttp://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2014/08/28/us/politics/28reuters-usa-californiawater.html?_r=0

            The California senate approved a bill that requires oil companies to disclose the amount of water they use, specifically during hydraulic fracturing (fracking). The bill does not require companies to limit water use but is meant to show the public how much water is used by these companies and where all the fresh water is going during California’s historic drought. The bill recognizes the need for transparency and seeks to force oil companies to tell the truth about how much they use.

            The bill is an important step towards accurately informing the public about California’s fresh water use and ultimately helping limit the affects of fracking on the drought by slowing water use by oil companies. However, there is still much more to do to stop the unnecessary use of such limited supplies of water but this will be harder to accomplish because the oil companies will fight hard to avoid losing the money that water restriction would cost them. Fracking has major negative effects on the environment like potentially causing earthquakes and endangering marine life with chemical waste.