Democrats Don't Give a Frack about American Workers
By Tom Borelli
Despite clear evidence that hydraulic fracturing can safely extract oil and natural gas from previously unreachable deposits, attacks on "fracking," as it's known, have grown harsher.
At a recent Democratic debate, Hillary Clinton said that under the restrictions she'd like to impose, "I do not think there will be many places in America where fracking will continue to take place."
Bernie Sanders was even blunter: "No, I do not support fracking." When the moderator pointed out that even many Democratic governors do, Sanders said they were just wrong.
With their blind opposition, elite Democrats and other environmental activists are endangering America's economy -- and ignoring science. Fracking -- or, injecting fluid into shale rock to extract oil and natural gas -- is an enormous boon to American workers. And it's safe.
Let's imagine the America of Clinton and Sanders -- an America without fracking.
Thanks to fracking, in 2014, America became the world leader in oil and natural-gas production. For the first time since 1970, we only import a quarter of the oil we use. In the America of Clinton and Sanders, the United States will again become dependent on foreign sources of energy.
From 2007 to 2012, fracking jobs grew 40 percent while the rest of the private sector grew at a 1 percent annual rate. Fracking currently supports about 2.1 million jobs. In the fracking-free America of Clinton and Sanders, those jobs are gone.
American households gained on average $1,200 from fracking in 2012, thanks to increased income from reduced energy costs. These same households could save $3,500 annually by 2025. In the America of Clinton and Sanders, incomes will decline and energy prices will rise.
From 2012 to 2025, fracking will provide $1.6 trillion in tax revenue to the American government - enough to cover the current federal deficit for almost three years. In the fracking-free America of Clinton and Sanders, government will be starved of an important source of revenue.
The oil and gas industry adds hundreds of billions of dollars to the nation's GDP annually, and natural-gas exports are a big plus on the ledger of America's trade deficit. In fracking-free America, the economic contraction will run hand-in-hand with a ballooning trade deficit.
Yet Clinton and Sanders have condemned natural gas development and production. But it's dangerous to attack proven energy sources of electricity for the pursuit of renewables that can't meet our energy needs.
In the fracking-free America of Clinton and Sanders, we'll have to get by on less electricity and live with rolling brownouts like the kind California endured in the first decade of this century -- and almost suffered again in 2014.
Why the hostility to fracking? Many claim it contaminates water. But studies by key federal agencies show fracking is safe. In a systematic review of the evidence, the EPA "did not find evidence" that fracking had "led to widespread, systemic impacts on drinking water resources in the United States."
Like any energy technology, fracking must be employed with care. But there is no reason to ban it, as Sanders would, or regulate it to death, as Clinton would.
Fracking creates jobs, generates tax revenue, reduces the cost of energy, and results in lower greenhouse-gas emissions. The risks to local environmental conditions are minimal and can be addressed with reasonable regulation. The fracking-free America of Clinton and Sanders is an America that is much poorer economically and no better off environmentally.
Tom Borelli, Ph.D. is a contributor with Conservative Review.
