Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
be prohibited from using fire? Obviously not, because the
right
to be protected from pollution exists in a
context,
which is the right to the pursuit of life more broadly. Fire was far more helpful to human health
than it was harmful, and so it was the right, healthy choice to use it.
Energy is so valuable that throughout history people have been willing to tolerate what we would con-
sider intolerable pollution because the energy impact was so positive. Fortunately, over time, technology
makes it possible to create less and less harmful waste and to better deal with the waste still created. As we
have more wealth, energy, and knowledge, we can have stricter pollution standards and even more minim-
ization of harmful waste.
The role of government is to pass laws based on individual rights and standards set according to science
and the current state of technological evolution. The job of industry is to continue that evolution.
If the government does its job, it achieves two great results: the
liberation and growth of energy pro-
duction
and the
progressive reduction of pollution and danger.
Historically, that is the trend—and with
better laws and technologies here and abroad, we can do much better.
Unfortunately, we are taught the opposite.
Itisacommonpractice toattackfossilfuelsbymisrepresenting themasfundamentally oruniquelydan-
gerous. This is what's behind the current attack on fracking—hydraulic fracturing, part of the shale energy
revolution I discussed in chapter 3.
There are at least fourcommon fallacies usedtodiscourage big-picture thinking andbreed opposition to
fossil fuels: the abuse-use fallacy, the false-attribution fallacy, the no-threshold fallacy, and the “artificial”
fallacy.
These are things to be on the lookout for when you follow the cultural debate; they are everywhere, and
all four are used to attack what might be the most important technology of our generation.
THE ABUSE-USE FALLACY
The largest fossil fuel controversy today, besides the broader climate change issue, is fracking—shorthand
for hydraulic fracturing—one of several key technologies for getting oil and gas out of dense shale rock,
resources that exist in enormous quantities but had previously been inaccessible at low cost.
Fracking has gotten attention, not primarily because of the productivity revolution it has created, but
because of concerns about groundwater contamination. The leading source of this view is celebrity film-
maker Josh Fox's
Gasland
(so-called) documentaries on HBO.
10
Looking at how these movies have affec-
ted public opinion is an instructive exercise.
Both
Gasland
movies follow a similar three-part formula. First, Fox tells a sad story about a family
undergoing a problem, usually with their drinking water. “When we turn on the tap, the water reeks of
hydrocarbons and chemicals,” says John Fenton of Pavillion, Wyoming. Then Fox blames it on the oil and
gas industry's use of fracking—without exploring any alternative explanations, such as the fact that meth-
ane and other substances often naturally seep into groundwater. This is the false-attribution fallacy, which
I'll discuss in a minute.
Even if Fox's examples were true, it would be illegitimate of him to conclude what he concludes today
and what “fracktivists” demand—that fracking, and really all oil and gas drilling, should be illegal, as if
any technology that can be misused should be outlawed.
