Friday Features Episode 1

Fracking, or hydraulic fracturing, is the topic of discussion in this podcast episode. The guests include representatives from environmental and oil industry organizations. The environmental group opposes fracking due to its harmful effects on the environment and communities. The oil industry representative argues that fracking has economic benefits, such as job creation and lower energy prices. The consumer interest group is concerned about the health and well-being of communities near fracking sites. They acknowledge the economic benefits but prioritize the health of consumers. The discussion also covers the positive and negative effects of fracking on communities, including health issues and economic activity. The debate revolves around whether the economic benefits outweigh the potential harm to communities and the environment. Good morning, afternoon, or evening, wherever you're tuning in from. My name is Allie and I'm your host for Friday Features, where we have new guests every Friday. Welcome to this week's episode. If you're a returning listener, thanks so much for your support. And if you're new, welcome to the podcast and make yourself at home. Today's topic will be about fracking, which is short for hydraulic fracturing, a method of extracting natural gases or oils by pumping large quantities of liquids at a really high pressure in the ground. We'll be discussing an ongoing case in which oil prices, which are currently $80 a barrel, are constantly inflating and increasing as demand for energy is also increasing. Congress proposed two possible actions they can take, either increasing supply or decreasing demand. I brought in three guests from different organizations to walk you guys through the opinions and beliefs these different groups have. First, we have SAFA, a member of the Works That Connect Club, an environmental nonprofit organization with a national membership whose central concern is environmental conservation. Welcome. Thanks for having me. So what is the Works That Connect Club and where does it stand in relation to this case? The Works That Connect Club is a passionate team of 750,000 members dedicated to environmental preservation. Our goal is to protect natural resources. Our mission is to protect local and indigenous populations from the harmful environment effects of fossil fuels, reduce dirty extinction practices such as fracking companies, and promote sustainable alternatives such as wind and solar. Our organization operates at a global scale, and in terms of fossil fuel extinction methods, we have witnessed around the world firsthand fracking is by far the worst for the environment and for the surrounding community. And I am sad to say this practice has become widespread across the U.S., but it's currently affecting the health and well-being of tens of thousands of hundreds of working Americans. So we work to advocate for those companies affected and raise awareness of more sustainable solutions. Thanks for sharing. Another guest I brought on the set is Isabel, a member of the American Petroleum Institute, a lobbying group financed by America's oil and natural gas industry. Welcome. Thanks for having me on the show. Of course. So what is the overall goal of your institute and what is its stance regarding this case? So our goal as the API is to promote policies that look to support the advancement of both the oil and natural gas industries located here in the United States. That said, we aim to create jobs that promote ingenuity and greater economic growth through the responsible development of these energy resources. To answer your question regarding the case and fracking, our institute believes that it is a practice that has had an undeniable impact on revolutionizing the energy industry by unlocking vast reserves of oil and natural gas, which then leads to lower energy prices and an increase in total energy security for citizens across the U.S. Additionally, we as a group are motivated and wholeheartedly believe that we can find ways to continue using this practice of fracking in a safe and efficient manner that ultimately minimizes existing environmental impacts. Thanks for sharing. And last but not least, we have CNA, a lobbyist of the American Council on Consumer Interest, an organization that aims to protect the interests of American consumers. Welcome. Thanks for having me. Thanks for coming on the podcast. So what is your organization's main goal and interest? Our American families are extremely important and we want them to not have worries about booming prices. We promote low costs and still focus on the safety of our consumers and general public welfare. Focusing on energy specifically, a policy that minimizes the cost for our consumers and keeps that low is best. The environment is something that is important to us and the families we represent. Its health is a concern of our consumers and the future of their families. We want low energy prices but not too much risk towards our consumers and consumers' communities' environmental qualities. Awesome. Now that we have the basics on the table, let's move on to our first topic. How does fracking economically benefit the US? Do you guys think the benefits are worth it? Let's start off with Isabel. Great question. So in the eyes of the API, fracking has enormous benefits that help to strengthen the country's economy. We must remember that a healthy economy is generally beneficial not only for big businessmen but for the consumers of that economy as well. That being said, if we look back to around 2008 when the shale boom took off, we'll see that this helped reduce the cost of natural gas for the US by $103 billion a year. Additionally, resulting modern technology in hydraulic fracturing helped instigate a rise in job creation that has since provided employment for approximately 149,000 citizens. Since then, our industries have generated approximately $1.6 trillion in federal and state tax revenue, meaning that our industry provides a majority of the tax funds that go towards supporting essential services such as schools, hospitals, and even public infrastructure. So if we dissolve these institutions that we've created, then we will be depriving the communities of the chance to have access to quality education and healthcare. So with that in mind, the question that I must pose to the group is, would you deprive people of these resources? I understand that job and tax revenue are important for everybody, but I wouldn't say that $1.6 trillion since 2008 is the majority of the tax revenue since the US spent four times that much last year alone. The average well only lasts for about 15 to 30 years but caused irreparable damage to the local community, often contaminating water supplies and offsetting any financial benefits to the state with expensive redemption of costs, not to mention the cost of people's lives in the community. It is a cheap alternative to importing oil in the short term and recuse our dependence on other countries for oil, but we could focus the time, money, and energy that Fracking requires on scaling sustainable energy solutions. In the long run, a few companies will make a profit, local communities will pay for it with their health. For example, in Pennsylvania, the externalities alone add up to $1.5 billion per year. It has proven that Fracking leads to low birth weight, developing issues in children, and chemically induced mental illness, which all have an economic cost. It also affects local infrastructure and lower housing value, cutting into the pockets of the state and its citizens. There are just a few examples of negative side effects of Fracking, but when we add everything up, it costs $1.5 billion a year and nearly $54 billion over the next 20 years. Both make great points. Economically, pros outweigh the cons and are worth it. Oil and gas production helped save the American consumer that I represent, typically a family of four, $2,500 a year. Fracking has made oil and gas more affordable and more accessible, and since then billions have been put towards new manufacturing, jobs, and the growth of economies. U.S. Chamber of Commerce reports that pausing Fracking would end around 19 million jobs. We can't have that for consumers. As Fracking grows, natural gas prices are dropping. SAFA brings up a good point questioning if these acts are truly worth it over time. With the concern of consumers in mind, it's hard to look to the future when a lot of economic choices you have to make are in the present. It's something to think about and plan for the future to change, but with rising prices, consumers must take the best, most affordable, and most importantly, the most accessible option to them. I wouldn't want to deprive consumers of these resources. Thank you guys for your input. Now going off of that, I wanted to introduce a new topic on the table. So it's known that there's different ways Fracking affects the health of communities in our nation. What are some positive and negative effects of Fracking on our communities? Interesting question, Ali. For the American ACCI represents, there are many concerns that come up. Health effects from Fracking are mainly unknown, but it's reported that people who live near sites experience headaches, nausea, respiratory problems, and more. Fracking fluid contains toxic substances and with possible spills or well failures, communities drinking water could be contaminated. Air pollution affects communities too. From trucks, wells, and equipment that the Fracking sites bring. Truck traffic to and from sites increases the crime activity around neighborhoods. Mainly, the sites put on a more industrial feel to the communities and diminishes quality of life there. Fracking doesn't have benefits for health of consumers and their environments, but benefits we can recognize is increase in economic activity, employment, and better income and housing prices. Natural gas has been better for air quality than when coal was heavily used to provide energy, but air pollution from natural gas is not any less prominent. Isabel, what do you think about these negative effects and do you believe that energy is more important than the health of our communities? Well, Ali, it's no surprise that many people view our industry in a negative light, but I must make it clear that we are committed to ensuring the safety of not only the general public, but also our own workers. Environmental groups that enter into the conversation with claims that diminish the importance of the oil industry are simply naive to the fact that it is an undeniable benefit to our economy. Furthermore, the policies of key players in the oil industry have transformed in the past couple of years to reflect the cooperation that we hope to build between ourselves and these environmental organizations. And while our company's awareness has been called into question, the implication that we've turned a blind eye on these problems is simply not true. Key oil companies such as ExxonMobil, Chevron, and Devon Energy have implemented policies and targets aimed to transition towards more environmentally responsible technologies and practices that will help move towards the goal of net zero emissions. Let's take ExxonMobil as an example. This company is committed to environmental awareness since it set a goal to reduce emissions by 15% by 2020. Additionally, since 2000, they have invested over $10 billion in research and development of lower emission technologies. And ExxonMobil has demonstrated a willingness to participate in environmental partnerships as they were one of the first to file an application with the EPA to use new technologies that will ultimately help detect emissions and mitigate these environmental effects. It is true that natural gas is cleaner than oil, but we cannot forget that oil is also extracted at those fracking sites and not just natural gas. The companies you mentioned need to look at this problem holistically if they expect to reach net zero. And the fact is that fracking is a crude method of oil extraction, which has a lot of unwanted side effects, both in its extraction and when we burn it as fuel. There has been an incredible ramp-up of fracking across the U.S. And if oil companies applied that same ambitious expansion to green energy, the companies that choose to do that would be on the leading edge of the next energy revolution, pioneering the future rather than contaminating our communities, putting our children and cousins in irreparable health damage to the communities where fracking exists. Thank you. Now that we've discussed the effects of fracking, let's delve into the possible solutions our nation's Congress can enforce. The way they'd increase supply would be either domestic supply from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which is in Alaska, or the foreign supply, meaning receiving supply internationally. As for decreasing demand, there's an economic option, which would be just increasing prices, but there's also a technological option, which would be investing in alternative energy conservation and or efficiency. Let's start off with Safa. Which solution do you and your organization favor? According to a recent report from the International Renewable Energy Agency, doubling renewable energy current global share could boost the global growth domestic product by up to 1.1%, equivalent to around $1.3 trillion by 2030. There are over 8 million jobs in the renewable energy sector, and in 2021 and 2022, energy employment saw faster growth than overall U.S. employment rate. Germany reached a significant milestone last year, generating over 50 of its electricity from renewable resources for the first time, aligning with its aim to achieve an 80% renewable electricity share by 2030 and a mostly decarbonized power supply by 2035. Meanwhile, the U.S. seems to be backsliding on climbing global by embracing fracking so full-heartedly. Hellenic Association for Energy Economics shows European progress in clean energy adoption, with Sweden leading at 98.22% and Finland at 89.18% of energy sourced from clean sources. Those numbers are a testament to the growing momentum towards renewable energy across Europe. As the United States, we need to be leading the way on major issues like climate change, or we stand to lose our place on the world stage as a global leader. Isabel, what solution do you and your organization favor? Well, speaking on behalf of the API, I can say that we are in favor of increasing supply. We do not want to give up existing systems that we built from the ground up, and frankly, we believe that the amount of money it would take to remove existing oil companies and transition to purely renewable energy, which may be unreliable, is not worth it. Recent data from the Institute for Energy Research has estimated that transitioning to an electric system that is 100% renewable would cost the United States between $4.5 trillion to $5.7 trillion by 2030, which is comparable to around a quarter of its total debt. On the other hand, allowing these existing plants that we have to operate would save around $500 billion. Of course, we do want to maximize profits that would result from raising prices, but we also don't want to deter people from utilizing these resources. Our proposal is that we continue using existing extraction practices within the oil industry, but create these partnerships with environmental groups who can help us implement more environmentally friendly practices so we can achieve net zero emissions and or meet guidelines laid out by existing proposals such as the Paris Climate Agreement. Sine, what do you think about these solutions, and are there any specific solutions you favor? Isabel left off with a good point. The ACCI would be interested in increasing supplies, but it's a great idea to join forces with environmental groups to keep on the right track because fracking isn't something we can completely drop. Decreasing demand brings possibilities of prices increasing or moving to technologies that are environmentally better, but economically risky for the consumers. The choice to increase supply from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska will bring benefits. The oil possibly amounts to 10 billion barrels. This could boost the revenue of American oil companies, create more jobs, and most importantly, lower prices for American consumers. If the fields of ANWR were opened up to fracking, economic stability would be brought to Alaskan government. Bill Baking Rates had a survey in 2023, and results showed that 43.72 percent of Americans struggled to pay their utility bills. With oil prices rising and expectancy to increase, fracking seems best for consumers. $3,276 per year is the average electricity bill in California for a family of four, and the natural average is $2,455. The consumers I represent are paying 33 percent higher. Nevertheless, let's recognize the risk this puts towards the consumer's environment. Carbon is locked into the frozen ground of ANWR, and fracking will release large amounts of it into the atmosphere. These are also Indigenous lands, and that's really important to consider. There's many things consumers and our business have to risk, depending on what is affordable for their lifestyle. We don't want to see the environment majorly harmed, but if Congress chooses to increase supply from ANWR, it would be highly beneficial. Well, thank you guys so much for coming onto the podcast and sharing all your knowledge on this very prevalent issue, and of course, thanks to everyone that tuned into this week's episode on Friday Features. Please subscribe and share with your friends, and also a special shout out to Professor Johnson and Ken Yokishota for making this podcast possible. Make sure to tune in to the next episode next week, and we hope to see you again.