Comments on: Those Impacted by Fracking: “The List of the Harmed” https://www.frackcheckwv.net/2013/04/19/those-impacted-by-fracking-%e2%80%9cthe-list-of-the-harmed%e2%80%9d/ Just another WordPress site Wed, 14 Feb 2024 02:06:39 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Laurel Peltier https://www.frackcheckwv.net/2013/04/19/those-impacted-by-fracking-%e2%80%9cthe-list-of-the-harmed%e2%80%9d/#comment-29559 Laurel Peltier Mon, 22 Apr 2013 14:23:12 +0000 http://www.frackcheckwv.net/?p=8080#comment-29559 Hi Alex: I am so glad you left a comment, because you touched on a topic I've been thinking about in regards to fracking and I plan to write about it soon. Thought about this all weekend, this is top-of-mind below... If I hadn't sold-back my econ textbooks (BS in Econ from UCLA), I'd be dusting them off and re-reading negative external costs; that is what I believe you're driving at. I think negative external costs are where one party benefits from an economic activity (hosting a wild nightclub party for profit) and another party does not benefit from the activity (sleep-less neighbors cleaning up beer bottles day after.) This concept applies to fracking (not to driving in my view, later on that) because a natural gas driller can suck up the gas on a person's property, negatively impact the landowner who often receives no benefit (tho' some do collect royalties, so that's arguable). Negative external costs are often not solved by free markets because the neg cost isn't priced in the equation. Other collective methods (regulation, govt influence, laws, peer pressure) need to be used to level the playing field-if that's what the "collective reasoning" requires. Another challenge is that when neg, external costs aren't priced, free markets tend to consume too much of that product. The third challenge, is for the parties who do not control the decisions and get a neg costs lopped on them, they are unfairly bearing the burden for another's behavior. In the US, I argue, we try as a collective society to mitigate negative costs; forcing everyone to buy uninsured coverage, zoning industrial sites away from residential and creating regulations on pollution and behaviors. That's part of the debate in my view is how and if fracking can be performed and fairly mitigate the neg costs. As I view the current system, the lack of disclosure rules, wastewater issues and lack of restitution for people being negatively harmed, "it" doesn't try at all to mitigate these costs. Also, I think, driving a car is a choice by both parties and both parties receive the benefits of tootling around and the costs are a chosen risk. Thank you again for your comment, I know many people feel as you do, I've heard it at many discussions I've had. It's all great, until it's you. Hi Alex: I am so glad you left a comment, because you touched on a topic I’ve been thinking about in regards to fracking and I plan to write about it soon. Thought about this all weekend, this is top-of-mind below…

If I hadn’t sold-back my econ textbooks (BS in Econ from UCLA), I’d be dusting them off and re-reading negative external costs; that is what I believe you’re driving at. I think negative external costs are where one party benefits from an economic activity (hosting a wild nightclub party for profit) and another party does not benefit from the activity (sleep-less neighbors cleaning up beer bottles day after.) This concept applies to fracking (not to driving in my view, later on that) because a natural gas driller can suck up the gas on a person’s property, negatively impact the landowner who often receives no benefit (tho’ some do collect royalties, so that’s arguable).

Negative external costs are often not solved by free markets because the neg cost isn’t priced in the equation. Other collective methods (regulation, govt influence, laws, peer pressure) need to be used to level the playing field-if that’s what the “collective reasoning” requires.

Another challenge is that when neg, external costs aren’t priced, free markets tend to consume too much of that product. The third challenge, is for the parties who do not control the decisions and get a neg costs lopped on them, they are unfairly bearing the burden for another’s behavior. In the US, I argue, we try as a collective society to mitigate negative costs; forcing everyone to buy uninsured coverage, zoning industrial sites away from residential and creating regulations on pollution and behaviors.

That’s part of the debate in my view is how and if fracking can be performed and fairly mitigate the neg costs. As I view the current system, the lack of disclosure rules, wastewater issues and lack of restitution for people being negatively harmed, “it” doesn’t try at all to mitigate these costs.

Also, I think, driving a car is a choice by both parties and both parties receive the benefits of tootling around and the costs are a chosen risk.

Thank you again for your comment, I know many people feel as you do, I’ve heard it at many discussions I’ve had. It’s all great, until it’s you.

]]> By: Vulcan Alex https://www.frackcheckwv.net/2013/04/19/those-impacted-by-fracking-%e2%80%9cthe-list-of-the-harmed%e2%80%9d/#comment-29452 Vulcan Alex Fri, 19 Apr 2013 22:41:53 +0000 http://www.frackcheckwv.net/?p=8080#comment-29452 Every form of economic activity has some negative effect. Now noise and traffic are at the low end of the scale and perhaps just need to be accepted. Industrial accidents also at some level need to be accepted, but safety should come first. Now surface pollution can and should be controlled or mitigated where control fails. Considering the large positive economic effect of fracking we will need to accept some negatives. After all we accept a large number of deaths and injuries as a price to pay for having cars and the freedom and benefits that they produce. Same with fracking. Every form of economic activity has some negative effect. Now noise and traffic are at the low end of the scale and perhaps just need to be accepted. Industrial accidents also at some level need to be accepted, but safety should come first. Now surface pollution can and should be controlled or mitigated where control fails. Considering the large positive economic effect of fracking we will need to accept some negatives. After all we accept a large number of deaths and injuries as a price to pay for having cars and the freedom and benefits that they produce. Same with fracking.

]]>