How Does Fracking Contribute to Climate Change?

What a difference two years make. In 2014, President Obama lauded the economic boost that hydraulic fracking – better known as fracking – had lent to the United States and called it a bridge fuel between coal and cleaner forms of energy.

Even at the time, there was widespread disagreement that fracking was as problem-free as the president maintained – and it appears that time has proven the doubters correct. New reports suggest that fracking might not only be responsible for localised air, soil and water pollution, but could actually exacerbate climate change on a global scale.

Bad news for communities

Though fracking has given the US economy a welcome shot in the arm and contributed to the rock-bottom prices of oil and gas worldwide, it has not come without a cost. Over the last few years, reports from around the world have suggested that fracking can upset the ecosystem in all manner of ways.

As early as January 2014, several US states confirmed that their water supplies had been polluted due to fracking. These admissions came despite vehement protest from the proponents of the practice that any water pollution was not associated with fracking.

Later that same year in June, researchers at Cornell University in New York found that fracking very likely contributed to soil pollution, as well. Spillage accidents during the process are reportedly fairly commonplace and approximately 40% of the toxic fluids used to drive pressure down into the rock find their way back up to the surface, thus contaminating soil in the vicinity.

Meanwhile, earlier this year it was concluded by Newcastle University that if proposed plans to frack in the UK went ahead, air pollution levels would rise by as much as 30%. Clearly, fracking is quite damaging to the local populace on several different levels, but new information suggests it might be a threat to the wider world, as well.

Methane and ethane just as bad as coal

Supporters of the practice have cited the use of natural gas as being less harmful to the environment than the use of coal, which emits vast amounts of carbon. However, since natural gas is composed almost entirely of methane, and methane is actually more damaging to the atmosphere than carbon in terms of global warming, this argument only holds true if minimal amounts of the gas are leaked during the process.

It is very difficult to monitor exactly how much methane is being leaked over an extended distance of pipeline, and the vicinity of farmland with cattle further muddies the issue when taking methane readings. However, livestock do not produce ethane, another by-product gas of fracking. When researchers measured pollution levels with particular regard to methane and ethane together, they found that shale gas was responsible for considerably more contamination than the cattle.

Furthermore, ethane is a dangerous problem in its own right. If it is allowed to build up in stagnant at lower temperatures, it can produce ozone, which is a harmful pollutant as well normally only found in summer. What’s more, ethane can persist for several months at a time and travel great distances, thereby becoming a global polluter.

As such, fracking has been proven to be dangerous on several different levels. Not only does it jeopardise the health and safety of those living and working in the vicinity of wells, but it can also have wider-reaching consequences for climate change, too.