Zachary Shahan in following up on his post earlier on the subsidies to coal, also posted oil and natural gas subsidies. Just as with coal, oil and natural gas cause a tremendous amount of pollution(?), which results in sizable subsidies in the form of uncorrected externalities? Unlike coal, he is unaware of any comprehensive studies that attempt to quantify the health and environmental costs of oil or natural gas. However, there are documented effects and calculations. Starting with natural gas...
As Environment America writes, natural-gas fracking has left a trail of contaminated water, polluted air, and marred landscapes in its wake (BS?). Here are some of the specific natural gas fracking costs and other findings that Environment America mentions:
1. The National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health recently warned that workers may be at elevated risk of contracting the lung disease silicosis from inhalation of silica dust at fracking sites. Silicosis is one of the dust-induced occupational ailments that imposed $50 million medical care costs in the U.S. in 2007 (BS?)
2. Residents living near fracking sites have long suffered from a range of health problems, including headaches, eye irritation, respiratory problems and nausea... potentially imposing economic costs ranging from health care costs to workplace absenteeism and reduced productivity (All BS?).
3. Fracking and associated activities also produce pollution that contributes to the formation of ozone smog and particulate soot. Air pollution from gas drilling in Arkansas Fayetteville Shale region imposed public health costs of more than $10 million in 2008. (Likely BS?).
4. The clearance of forest land in Penn for fracking is projected to lead to increased delivery of nutrient pollution to the Chesapeake Bay, which already suffers from a vast nutrient-generated dead zone. The cost of reducing the same amount of pollution as could be generated by fracking would be substantial(What?)
Read ...