Tonia's Debates: [clear]
All Debates
You are browsing through all debates. You can refine the results by using the drop-down boxes above. You can view more information about each debate by clicking Show Details at right.
Winning Position: Disagree
Fracking is short for 'hydraulic fracturing' and it is a process used for exacting shale gas. Chevron wants to exploit the shale gas reserves in Pungesti, Romania.
Disadvantages: The toxic chemicals used for extracting poison the water and some even have cancer causing properties. In villages such as Pungesti, people are farmers and rely on their land and water used in agriculture to survive. If they are deprived of their land, they can no longer earn their living. Moreover, they might not be qualified for the jobs this project might provide, therefore there will be no economical benefits for them. Fracking caused environmental problems in the US and it is forbidden in some EU countries because of its damaging consequences. The company plans on extracting shale gas in various other places.
Advantages: This gas can replace coal in power stations. More than a third of natural gas burned in the US is coming from fracking wells, and shale gas is now cheaper than coal in the US. Obama recently praised the gas boom and credited it with delivering cleaner energy. Many people say shale gas can provide a greener future.
Should Chevron go through with fracking in Pungesti (and various other places) for economical + long-term environmental benefits or stop the process because of the harm it will bring to the inhabitants and the environment?
Although there are a lot of articles on the topic, I hope the information provided is sufficient in order to form an opinion.