Scenario You work for OneEarth, an environmental consulting company that specializes in building-condition assessments, contaminated-site remediation, and energy audits. Founded by an environmentally

Name

Date

Environmental Impact of Fracking

Conceptions and Misconceptions

One of the most widely held beliefs about fracking is that it is a relatively safe and influential oil and gas extraction. This notion stems partly from the fact that fracking has been employed in the United States for decades. This is not to say that fracking has no environmental concerns. Moreover, the process poses significant ecological dangers, including water contamination, air pollution, and methane emission, a potent greenhouse gas, into the sky. Another common misconception regarding fracking is that it is a renewable energy source. While fracking does not emit as many emissions as other fossil fuels, it has been related to several environmental issues (Dorkshin, 2021). They include using enormous volumes of water, the risk of water contamination, and releasing methane into the atmosphere. As a result, it is not regarded as a renewable energy source. 

           Fracking is extracting oil and natural gas from subsurface rock formations by fracturing them with pressurized water, sand, and chemicals. It is a relatively inexpensive and efficient means to extract oil and natural gas and has become more popular in the United States (Dorkshin, 2021). Fracking is a hotly debated topic, with proponents extolling its potential benefits and detractors emphasizing its risks. On the one hand, enhanced energy independence and economic benefits for local communities are possible (Meng, 2022). Fracking, on the other hand, has significant environmental dangers, including water contamination, air pollution, and the release of methane into the sky. 

           Because of the possible threats to the environment and public health, fracking is a significant concern. Fracking involves using massive amounts of water and harmful chemicals, which can contaminate water. There is also the possibility of air pollution due to the chemicals used in fracking being discharged into the atmosphere (Black et al., 2021). As a result of fracking, methane, a vital greenhouse gas, can be released into the sky. Because of these environmental hazards, there has been strong opposition to fracking, with numerous local and state governments introducing legislation to regulate or prohibit the process. Furthermore, various ecological and public health organizations have spoken out against fracking, given the possible hazards. 

           Before undertaking the study, my consulting view was that fracking has the potential to be a beneficial source of energy, but it must be done responsibly. While fracking can efficiently extract oil and natural gas and benefit local communities economically, it also poses substantial environmental dangers. As a result, it is critical to guarantee that any fracking activities are carried out responsibly and continuously monitored to ensure that they do not affect the environment or public health.

Identification and Description

           The central point or conclusion about the environmental implications of fracking is that it is a complex topic with numerous advantages and disadvantages. Arguments and sub-arguments on both sides, and no single point of view is correct or incorrect. The primary justifications and sub-arguments in favor of fracking are that it can provide an affordable, reliable energy source, create community jobs, and provide government cash (Black et al., 2021). Fracking supporters also say it can lessen reliance on foreign energy sources while reducing air and water pollution. The primary arguments and sub-arguments against fracking are that it can pollute ground and surface water, discharge poisons into the environment, create seismic activity, and increase light, noise, and traffic pollution. Fracking opponents also claim that it can harm human and animal health.

The grounds for thinking about the environmental effects of fracking are based on scientific evidence, such as research papers and environmental agency reports. The evidence on both sides of the issue is highly circumstantial and open to interpretation. The assumptions and biases about the environmental effects of fracking are heavily influenced by who is making the argument. Opponents of fracking are likely to believe that any environmental impact will be negative, while proponents may assume that environmental damage will be manageable or minor (Meng, 2022). Political or economic biases may also impact both sides of the debate. 

Recognition and Evaluation

           The arguments made on the topic of fracking's environmental implications are primarily logical. The conclusion of a deductive argument is logically deduced from a collection of premises. In the case of fracking, the premises are scientific proof of the process's potential hazards and advantages. The conclusion is that fracking is a complex problem with advantages and disadvantages. A sound argument is one in which all premises are true, and the decision follows logically from them. The assumptions—the facts from environmental agencies—are accurate in fracking, and the conclusion that fracking is a complex topic with pros and disadvantages follows logically from them. As a result, the reasoning is sound. 

           The argument makes no use of formal logical fallacies, flaws in reasoning that may be found by evaluating an argument's structure. It does, however, use informal logical fallacies, which are reasoning flaws that cannot be seen by examining the form of an idea. The argument, for example, assumes that any environmental impact of fracking is either positive or negative without addressing the possibility that the effect is neutral. This is an example of the false dilemma fallacy, in which two options are presented as the only potential outcomes. The notion that the environmental effects of fracking are a complex subject with both advantages and disadvantages is valid and sound. It is founded on sound principles and proceeds logically to its conclusion. While the argument contains certain informal logical flaws, it is helpful and generally good.

References

Black, K. J., Boslett, A. J., Hill, E. L., Ma, L., & McCoy, S. J. (2021). Economic, environmental, and health impacts of the fracking boom. Annual Review of Resource Economics, 13, 311-334.

Dokshin, F. A. (2021). Variation of public discourse about the impacts of fracking with geographic scale and proximity to proposed development. Nature Energy, 6(10), 961-969.

Meng, Q. (2022). The Impacts of Fracking on Climate Change. In Handbook of Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation (pp. 3225-3236). Cham: Springer International Publishing.