There is a new (& in this writer’s opinion) more terrifying face to anti-environmental retaliations that is rapidly becoming more and more prominent. That being the tendency for people to accept the environmental risks that many practices entail but waving the flag of possible economic bonuses in a way that seems to take it as a given that this over-rules any environmental concerns.
There are stories (though rarely headlines) every day that confirm this trend. A couple I have noticed recently have been the story of Suntech’s troubles that while solar panels are now financially available to many this means that the companies aren’t getting the returns once expected from this alternative energy source (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/mar/20/suntech-troubles-shadow-green-tech-industry). Another news story informed me of previously protected parts of the Amazon are under threat because not enough money could be invested in it to save it from drilling plans (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/16/ecuador-approves-yasuni-amazon-oil-drilling), what costs could possibly need this amount? Is it a payment to counteract the money lost from not investing in drilling? Whatever the answer the message is clear, cash up front is needed to save a precious natural area.
There are many other examples, in fact it could be said every environmental danger at the moment can be linked to this unbalance between desire for money and safety of the planet. But, as the latest battle to be hitting the headlines, the argument on fracking seems like good focus. I recently heard that a young tory’s opinion on the matter was that although he acknowledged ‘the risks of water-pollution’ he found it ‘jejune to simply disregard any potential economic benefit’. Here we see this argument, accepting the risks but fluttering them away with a claim of monetary gain. This is the same logic going through David Cameron’s mind when he recently called for the UK to whole-heartedly back fracking and hailed it as a saviour of the struggling economy. Mr. Cameron also claims that ‘International evidence shows there is no evidence why fracking should cause contamination of water supplies or other environmental damage, if properly regulated’ (http://www.businessinsider.com/british-pm-david-cameron-fracking-2013-8).
“ If properly regulated.” That’s the key phrase there. Because of course if he was to omit that there is a wealth of examples to pull from countries, such as America where fracking is already well under way, that discount his claim. & the ‘if’ in his statement is a massive one, and it’s certainly no promise. We only have to remember who the people are that really profit off of fracking in the UK, Cuadrilla and the other companies carrying out the drilling and their chums. And of course because this lot want to squeeze every penny and get their full investment’s worth out of the fracking potential I think it is fair to say that proper regulation is unlikely. Just as they did in the US they will cut corners to save money and potentially will do even more so as the production cost of the UK fracking market are likely to be more expensive, due to more difficult extraction because of a more densely populated area.
Defenders of fracking, like David Cameron, hail the economic benefits even though they are probably grossly over-exaggerated, such as the claims of employment to local communities. But I digress, the point here is that they are valuing these economic potentials over the real future of the country. To be so obsessed with the economic benefits while aware of the environmental risks is such twisted and short-sighted thinking it is almost maddening to me. What is the point of achieving some economic progress if 23 years or so down the lines, when all the available reserves of shale gas have been dried up, we find ourselves with contaminated water (or no water as was recently discovered to be the case in a fracked Texan town http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/aug/11/texas-tragedy-ample-oil-no-water) and a climate in a more perilous position than it is already.
Every person eagerly dashing to grab these energy sources shows a strange logic of valuing wealth over not only the environment, but the future. I can understand why money is such a prime mover for many, thinking purely instinctively it is a way to insure that your families will have a secure and prosperous life as well as bringing the same benefits to your own. But surely this, almost evolutionary, urge must be counteracted when they think of the future they are creating for their children, one that is uncertain and fragile. While climate change denial seems to be a dwindling belief (the ever mounting pile of scientific evidence is hard to disprove) that does not mean the environment and the future of the planet is any safer.
Lost in the Industrial Jungle 