 “If everyone in the world lived the way people do in the U.S., it would take five Earths to provide enough resources for everyone” (Berger). Climate change is real and is increasingly affecting the planet. In the United States, the biggest output of CO2, the main facilitator of climate change, is car exhaust. Indeed, the transportation industry is responsible for “the majority of NOx and CO emissions” and “one-third of CO2 emissions” (van Wee). Fortunately, over the past half-decade, the US has seen great strides in the developments of electric cars technology. These developments have allowed both the demand and supply of electric cars to increase exponentially. Electric cars are much safer for the environment compared to conventional cars due to their low CO2 emissions and their reliance on electricity instead of oil. However, as the electric cars industry keep growing exponentially, so does the demand for electricity. In the United States, the two main sources of electricity are coal and natural gas. These two sources both have negative impacts on the environment, but coal is much more toxic because it emits a higher rate of CO2 and other harmful chemicals. As for natural gas, two-third of the U.S. natural gas production comes from hydraulic fracturing, also known as fracking. Environmentalists have been pushing to get fracking banned or at least tightly restricted due to its potential environmental impacts. However, increasing the nation’s fracking operations will actually have a positive impact on the environment. In order to bring about economic benefits and satisfy the increased demand for electricity in the upcoming age of electric cars while reducing human impacts on the environment in the process, the U.S. should invest in hydraulic fracturing technology and operations to lower its reliance on coal, the most toxic of all forms of energy.

United States consumers are increasingly committing to a trend towards electric cars. Recent developments in this industry have allowed electric cars’ prices to reduce, giving consumers easier access to owning an electric car. In fact, over the past few years, the “electric cars industry have developed by 50-100%” (Langezaal). The best illustration of this development is Tesla, the leading manufacturer and seller of electric cars. In 2016, “Tesla produced 24,882 vehicles in Q4, resulting in total of 2016 production of 83,922 vehicles,” which is “an increase of 64% from 2015” (Shahan). To put these numbers into perspective, in Quarter 3 of 2012, Tesla only delivered 321 cars (Shahan). So, from Quarter 3 of 2012 to Quarter 4 of 2016, Tesla’s production has increased 78 times. In fact, Tesla, a 14-year-old company, is developing so rapidly that it “is now worth more than 113-year-old Ford, with a market cap of $47 billion compared with Ford’s $45 billion” (Bhuiyan). Tesla is just one of many manufacturers of electric cars, but its successes best illustrates this industry’s ascent because Tesla owns 45% of the U.S. electric vehicles sales share between January and June 2017 (McCarthy). This industry’s ascent not only illustrates the recent technological breakthroughs, but it is also a testament to consumers’ recent interest in electric vehicles. As consumers’ interest in electric cars increase, so does human efforts to reduce impacts on the environment. 

This consumers’ interest in electric vehicles is good news to environmentalists because electric cars are much friendlier to the environment compared to oil-based cars. Depending on the way electricity is produced, electric cars emit 30% to 100% less CO2 emissions than conventional cars (van Wee 102). This reduction in CO2 output is imperative to reducing human carbon footprint because the transportation industry is the biggest emitter of greenhouse gas in the U.S. In order to support this effort of reducing human impacts by switching to electric cars, the U.S. should invest more money into fracking to incentivize consumers. An increase in production of natural gas will reduce the cost of extracting this energy because it will increase the supply for natural gas. As supply increases, the cost decreases. Indeed, over the past few years, natural gas prices have become very competitive compared to coal. In 2016, gas prices “were as low as $16 per megawatt hour compared to some $22 for coal” (Light). This decrease in the cost of electricity could cause people to switch from other modes to electric cars through the “rebound effect” (van Wee 99). According to this effect, consumers will switch to electric cars because of its low fuel costs. As more people switch to electric cars, less CO2 will be emitted into the atmosphere from the transportation sector. 

Shale formations, which contain large amounts of oil and natural gas but are very difficult to extract, underlie large parts of the U.S. The method to extract this natural gas, known as fracking, was not invented until the 1990s (Manfreda). Fracking operations are done by first drilling vertically approximately two miles into the ground until reaching a layer called sandstone where natural gas is present. Then, large pipes are plunged down alongside with steel and cement casings to avoid leakages. When the pipes reach the sandstone layer, it curves horizontally and continue drilling sideways for up to another two miles. Fracking begins by forcing plastic balls down the well. These balls open sleeves in the pipes to expose holes. Then, fluid is forced down the pipes under extreme pressure to shoot through the holes and fracture the rocks. Once the rocks are fractured, natural gas and oil trapped inside these rocks are released. The pipes then collect this energy and transfer them up to the surface ground. The used fluids are pumped up alongside with the extracted gas and oil. Some of these fluids are recycled, while the rest are pumped into disposable wells deep below aquifers. 

 The incentives for extracting natural gas using the fracking method are mostly economic ones. Since the development of shale gas began shortly ago, gas prices have decreased considerably. Indeed, according to the Congressional Budget Office, “the price of natural gas would be about 70 percent higher than currently projected by 2040” if shale gas did not exist (Gecan 2). To put this statistic into perspective, natural gas allows gas prices in the U.S. to be so competitive that “average gas prices are about three times higher in Europe and four times higher in Japan” (Gecan 16). Energy consumers are the chief beneficiary of shale gas because it allows them access to electricity at a very competitive price. Because of this economic benefit, fracking is increasingly becoming a bigger part of the U.S. energy sector. The U.S. currently extracts about “9.5 trillion cubic feet of shale gas per year,” which amounts to “40 percent of U.S. production of natural gas” (Gecan 2). This number will increase even more in the long term. The U.S. Energy Information Administration projects that by 2040, “shale gas will account for about 60 percent of all natural gas consumed in the United States” (Gecan 9). These statistics certainly speak volume to the importance of shale gas in the U.S. energy sector and economy. Natural gas, along with coal, contributes to almost all the electricity generated in the United States. 

Despite all these economic benefits that fracking provides, environmentalists have been fighting to get fracking banned or at least tightly limited due to its potential impacts on climate change. They assert that “fracking is bad news for climate since it unlocks a whole new source of fossil fuels” (Vaughan). In the process of converting fossil fuels to energy that can be used, CO2 are released into the atmosphere. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, which means it traps solar heat in the atmosphere and make the atmosphere warmer. One of the effects of this warmed up atmosphere is rising sea level. Projections from the National Geographic shows that “sea levels are expected to rise between 7 and 23 inches” (Global Warming) because the warmer air melts ice in the North and South poles. This rising sea level may flood and devastate coastal areas such as Miami, where “drainage systems and seawalls are no longer enough” to keep the floods out (Ruggeri). Another potential impact of climate change is its effects on storms and hurricanes. Due to climate change, “hurricanes and other storms are likely to become stronger” (Global Warming) because they need warm air in order to develop and sustain. Although there is no direct evidence, many environmental critics blame the recent hurricanes Harvey and Maria on climate change. Environmentalists claim that these effects of climate change, along with many others, are devastating enough to ban fracking or at least limit its productions. 

Although these impacts are scientifically adequate and should be acknowledged, the U.S. should invest more in fracking operations to reduce its reliance on coal, a form of energy that releases much more CO2 than natural gas. A study by the Institute of Thermal Technology concludes that “emissions to the atmosphere, due to the electricity production, are higher for coal than natural gas” (Pikon 1148). Specifically, each kWh of electricity produced by coal releases 989 grams of CO2 into the atmosphere, while this number for natural gas is only 383 grams (Pikon 1148). In short, coal releases almost 300% more CO2 than natural gas. Not only that, coal also releases roughly 369% more NOx and 6300% more SO2 than natural gas (Pikon 1148). NOx gases are the cause of smog and acid rain, while SO2 “causes coughing, wheezing, shortness of breath, or a tight feeling around the chest” (Sulfur Dioxide) when breathed in. The statistics provided above clearly show that coal is much more toxic to the environment and human than natural gas. Currently, 64.2% of the electricity generated in the U.S. is from coal and natural gas (What is U.S.). Of this, 33.8% is from natural gas and 30.4% is from coal (What is U.S.). In the next century, as demand for electric cars rise, so will the demand for electricity. As a result, the U.S. should invest more in fracking operations in order to reduce its reliance on coal. Both these fossil fuels have impacts on the environment, but natural gas is the better option. 

Another environmental concern over climate change is its disruption of nature such as forest lands, agricultural lands, and grass lands. Fracking sites are often located in these regions, and building a fracking site means all the living habitats in its path has to be destroyed. Environmental advocates worry that deforestation caused by fracking “could be a critical factor driving climate change” and may lead to “a loss of habitat for animal and plant species” (Meng 954). Trees are crucial to stopping climate change because they take CO2 out of the atmosphere and store them in their bodies. Given that CO2 is the main factor driving climate change, taking it out of the atmosphere is one of the few ways to slow down climate change. However, fracking sites in forest regions require trees to be cut down, thus leading to criticism from environmental groups. Besides the destruction of trees, environmental advocates are also worried about the displacement of animal species. As fracking operations destroy their natural habitats, species living in fracking sites regions have no choice but to move away. This could lead to invasive species and loss of species because some animals cannot adapt to change. Many environmentalists worry that the economic benefits fracking brings are not worth it at the expense of deforestation and animals’ displacement. 

Although it is true that fracking may cut down trees and displace animals, coal extraction is even more destructive to the environment in these respects due to a coal extraction method called mountaintop removal. This method is done by “clear-cutting forests, blowing the tops off of mountains, and then dumping the debris into streambeds” (Hansen). This mountaintop removal method is much more destructive because an entire mountaintop needs to be removed, whereas fracking operations only require the areas around the fracking pads to be cleared because most of the operations happen underground. Moreover, the mountaintop removal method not only cuts down trees but also remove all the soils at the top of the mountains. This removal is much more extensive than that of fracking because removing soils may change the entire soil makeup and the habitat may not recover to its initial state. On the other hand, since only trees are removed in fracking operations, once the operations are over, the habitats can regrow and recover to their initial state. Mountaintop removal not only affects its immediate areas of extraction but also the areas around it because it dumps all the debris into nearby streams. In fact, “this technique has buried more than 800 miles of Appalachian streams in mining debris” and the number is still growing (Hansen). These buried streams may never recover to their initial state because of the toxicity from the debris. This toxicity kills aquatic life and makes the streams unlivable. In order to avoid these extensive impacts that coal extraction poses to not only terrestrial life but also aquatic life, natural gas is the better option due to its significantly less extensive impacts. 

Another major concern about fracking is its leakage of methane gas out to the atmosphere. Natural gas is made up of mostly CH4, also known as methane, which is much better at trapping heat than CO2. In order words, if leaked into the atmosphere, methane may significantly accelerate climate change. From 2002 to 2014, the U.S. has seen a “30 percent increase in methane emissions” (Romm). Many environmentalists blame this increase on “the leakage of methane from the natural gas production and delivery system” (Romm). This particular concern is unique compared to the other ones because this concern is not about the fracking operations itself, but its quality. The leakage of methane is not a result of the act of fracking, but of the poor delivery system that the U.S. is implementing. Concerns over this leakage should be dealt with, but banning fracking is not the solution. Instead, investing more money into the fracking industry, as is the author’s thesis, is the solution because a portion of this money can go to improving the quality of fracking operations and delivery systems. This solution is much better than banning natural gas because of all the other economic and environmental benefits that natural gas brings, as discussed above. By investing money into improving the natural gas delivery system, the U.S. can slow down climate change by preventing methane from escaping into the atmosphere and give American citizens confidence in the energy industry. 

Fracking is a new extraction method and its newness leaves a lot of environmentalists in doubt. Environmental advocates are concerned about the potential impacts that fracking may pose to the environment. Their concerns are legitimate and should be dealt with, but banning fracking is not the solution. In fact, investing more money into the fracking industry is the solution because it alleviates the effects that coal poses, which are much more pervasive. Some environmental critics proposes that the U.S. should invest money into renewable energy instead, but the renewable energy industry is much more expensive and takes much longer to develop. In the long term, renewable energy may become more affordable, but the electric cars industry is developing so quickly that the energy industry cannot afford to wait for renewable energy’s prices to reduce. Cheap electricity prices are imperative at this point in the electric cars industry because they will incentivize even more people to switch to electric cars. Fracking is not the best thing for the environment, but it will indirectly reduce carbon emissions from the transportation sector and alleviate impacts from coal extraction. 
