Recently I attended the lecture given by Barbara Lifton regarding the drilling the Marcellus Shale. The Marcellus Shale is basically a giant piece of rock 1-2 miles beneath the surface which runs beneath New York, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Ohio, and contains immense amounts of methane gas trapped in it. Hydraulic fracturing, or “hydrofracking,” is the relatively new process where millions of gallons of water mixed with chemicals at a high pressure blast through the rock and free the trapped gas in the shale. This natural gas is 70% cleaner than coal, so some are saying that it is the fuel we should be switching to and investing in.

This process has been done in Pennsylvania, Texas, Oklahoma, and Colorado. And recently, Cornell has been considering leasing some of its land to be hydrofracked.

There are several reasons why drilling this shale for natural gas would be detrimental to our environment. For instance, due to the intense drilling process, it takes 3-5 million gallons of water for each well bore. Our global supply of freshwater is limited, and continues to be depleted every day. With a full-scale plan, there would be 40,000 plus trucks transporting water every single day, polluting the atmosphere and wearing down the roads. And then there is the issue of the remaining fluid: every time a new well bore is made, there are millions of gallons of water waste left over, contaminated with chemicals and radiation. The hydrofracking process has a lot of things that could go wrong and devastate the environment in ways we can’t predict. Even though natural gas itself might be more environmentally friendly than coal, the process of hydrofracking is not safe and certainly not sustainable.

But aside from all this, Lifton stressed how the drilling process would be unsightly and completely destroy the landscape for residents who live in close proximity. This is the argument that had me thinking. It is very easy to sympathize with this view. Much of the scenery of New York is amazing, and I’m sure the people who live here hold it very dear. And any display of industrialization is sure to invade this scene.

Nature untouched is treasured because it is exactly that: untouched by society. It reminds people of a simpler time that has not been corrupted by the evils of industrialization, and provides an escape. Bringing trucks and machines into nature ruins this perception completely; especially in this picture, where the heavy machinery from hydrofracking is guaranteed to stay day and night for three years.

I do agree that hydrofracking would undermine the beauty of upstate New York. But this argument leads to contradictions for the environmentalist, such as myself. Where does this leave things like solar panels and windmills? These technologies also compromise the integrity and the beauty of the landscape. Residents are using this exact argument to protest windmill farms. They argue that the windmills should be put in a place where the beauty will not be compromised.

To me, this reasoning seems selfish. These people are thinking solely of nature and how it affects THEM. The change in landscape may be better for society as a whole, and the people fighting against it are only thinking of how it will affect them. In order for there to be change, we NEED compromise on ALL levels. We need to compromise the harmful aspects of our lifestyle, we need to compromise the cheapness of mass-produced goods for the quality of sustainable goods, and we may need to compromise some of our natural landscape in order to save the rest of it.

On the other hand, if locals don’t fight to protect the beauty and integrity of the landscape in their own backyard, then who will? They may be worried about only their city, and not have a care about the landscape in a different state or country. But ideally, the locals in that different city will be just as protective of the land surrounding them.

So where is the line for how much we should sacrifice, and who decides this? If the residents always fight to protect and conserve their land, nothing will get done. And if no one fights, then natural scenery will continue to be destroyed without taking consequences into consideration. I guess what comes from all of this is that we should fight to preserve the land around us (and local issues in general), but only after taking the global picture into consideration. The beauty of nature is what gives us inspiration to fight issues such as hydraulic fracturing, and it is worth fighting for. But to fight only for beauty’s sake is not rational or practical. I sympathize with the next-door-neighbors of those who have agreed to lease land for hydrofracking. But more than that, I am worried about the huge waste of freshwater, the pollution from the transportation and the process itself, and the enormous amount of leftover chemical waste. However, if these issues can somehow be solved, then I may change my opinion. But until then, we should keep fighting..

Frack no!