A fracking ban would harm the economy, cost millions of jobs, and push America to rely on foreign energy again.

2020 Democratic presidential hopefuls Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren have already declared they want to ban fracking as a way to fight climate change. Others have said they would find ways to phase it out.

Deep research into America without fracking finds an unhealthy economy plus millions without jobs.

Economy, Jobs, and Less Dependence on Foreign Energy

﻿

The Wall Street Journal published this report on Sunday, but the research has been around for years. Unfortunately, the hatred towards fracking is nothing new with the far-left.

Fracking “involves pumping a mixture of water, sand and chemicals into rock formations deep below the earth’s surface to release reserves of oil and gas.”

This practice has become popular because it has helped America lessen her dependence on foreign oil:

U.S. shale oil accounts for most of America’s oil production, which is now the largest in the world and has helped mitigate the effects of last week’s disruption in Saudi output. Energy experts say cutting off a significant portion of U.S. shale-oil supply could have profound economic effects in the U.S., including in states like Pennsylvania that are likely to be key battlegrounds in the 2020 election. “Just the messaging is giving investors and companies heartburn,” said Katie Bays, co-founder of Sandhill Strategy, which advises companies on energy policy.

Shale companies produce around eight million barrels of oil a day. That is 10% of the global supply. Other procedures push the total to 12 million barrels of oil a day.

International Energy Agency Executive Director Fatih Birol explained to CNBC that the ban would hurt America and Europe. Before fracking, Russia had complete control in the natural gas energy sector. America’s dominance has allowed “options for the consumers” and making it “better for energy security.”

Birol considers climate change a “serious issue,” but urges the government to include the energy sector in conversations and make them a part of the solution. It needs to stop considering them as part of “the problem or a barrier.”

More jobs in Pennsylvania means a boost for job unions. Pennsylvania AFL-CIO President Rick Bloomingdale does not think the Democrats will win over the state with their fracking bans. He reminded them that citizens “vote with their pocketbooks.” If the residents “have a solid financial footing” they will then look at other issues.

Democratic Opposition

Sanders, Warren, and others like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) want everyone to stop using fossil fuels. Others do not like fracking because of the chemicals companies use in the process.

On my first day as president, I will sign an executive order that puts a total moratorium on all new fossil fuel leases for drilling offshore and on public lands. And I will ban fracking—everywhere. — Elizabeth Warren (@ewarren) September 6, 2019

Fracking is a danger to our water supply. It’s a danger to the air we breathe. It causes earthquakes. It’s highly explosive. And it’s contributing to climate change. We need to ban it nationwide. pic.twitter.com/acF22iQLRy — Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) May 7, 2019

I’m in Colorado w/ @JoeNeguse visiting communities whose air is being poisoned by fracking. What we’re seeing is appalling. Companies are building fracking sites on public lands, across the street from schools + homes. Their toxic emissions are invisible. This camera sees them. pic.twitter.com/Kem0MT1lMj — Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) September 21, 2019

Democrats may want to think twice before going extreme on fracking. A ban on the practice would affect Pennsylvania, a valuable swing state in elections:

Roughly half of Pennsylvania’s counties have fracking activity. Those with some of the greatest concentration of wells—in the southwest and northeast corners of the state—were areas that strongly backed President Trump in the 2016 election, when he carried the state by only about 44,000 votes out of 6.1 million cast. “In the last three decades, we’ve been writing obituaries for manufacturing. And in the last four or five years, we’ve been writing birth announcements up and down the Appalachian Basin because of our newfound supplies of energy,” said David Spigelmyer, president of the Marcellus Shale Coalition, which represents most of the natural-gas producers in the state.

It would also put them in danger of losing Ohio and Colorado, two other important swing states.

But the Democratic opposition to fracking shows the growing influence of climate change advocates on the left. Yes, it seems environmentalists and climate change people have split into separate groups.

President Barack Obama encouraged fracking because it frees America from foreign energy and brought down energy prices. His administration placed many regulations on the fracking industry to appease the environmentalists who had worries about polluting water.

The environmentalists never pushed Obama’s administration to ban fracking. They just wanted more regulations.

The hyper end-of-the-world climate change people have taken over, though. They want the government to basically ban all fossil fuels, which would include fracking.

Past Research on Fracking Bans

﻿

Brookings Institution noted in 2015 “that households gained $200 from fracking just from lower gas prices alone.”

A 2016 report from the Global Energy Institute Report discovered a fracking ban would lead to 15 million losing their jobs by 2022 while causing a rise in electricity and energy prices.

While WSJ pointed out Pennsylvania, the energy report included Ohio and Colorado, two other swing states, along with Texas:

Additionally, the Energy Institute’s report looks specifically at the economic impacts of a fracking ban on Colorado, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas. In all these states, the impact could be severe. 1.6 million Texans could lose their jobs, while Pennsylvania could lose $50 billion a year in state GDP. Colorado could lose 215,000 jobs, and the average Ohio household could see costs rise by $4,000 a year. “While on its face, ‘keep it in the ground’ policies are intended to punish the energy industry, in reality they punish the entire economy,” said Harbert. “Bringing back energy scarcity means higher energy prices for everyone. Beyond that, banning fracking would make America much more reliant on foreign sources of energy, weakening our national security.” Using the IMPLAN model, the report modeled changes to the U.S. economy, including real labor income, energy prices, air transportation costs, and energy extraction jobs. The report also breaks down three types of economic shock—higher residential energy costs, higher business energy costs, and upstream production losses. Seventeen separate economic sectors—many of which have little to do with the oil and gas sector—would experience hardship as a result of higher prices. Among the most vulnerable are retail and wholesale sectors of the economy.

Nova Scotia has seen the effects of a fracking ban. In November 2018, the Frontier Centre for Public Policy wrote that the fracking ban “have cost Nova Scotians at least $333 million a year in lost spending.” The economy lost $2 billion and between 750 to 1,500 full-time jobs.

[Featured image via YouTube]



