Summary of some of the arguments made in opposition to Fracking (mainly UK)
No solution to peak energy "Shale gas should not be seen as a solution to the EU's energy, climate and competitiveness challenge," Paris think-tank
Institute for Sustainable Development and International Relations (IDDRI)in its 2014 report
News 24 Fracking may be being used as a short term solution governments rather than long-term investing in safe,
renewable sources of energy. Fracking leads to a continued reliance on fossil fuels.
Political U-turns after reassurances given In December MPs voted to allow fracking at 1,200m below national parks, Areas of Outstanding National Beauty,
the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads and World Heritage Sites. Such areas of natural importance had been considered safe from fracking when in the previous January
ministers had pledged an "outright ban" on fracking in national parks.
This is causing deep concern to people even when they hold no informed views on fracking.
Adverse human and animal health effects caused by fracking, it is claimed, include neurological, pulmonary, gastroenterological,
dermatological, immunological, haematological, endocrinological, ophthalmological, reproductive, and genetic illnesses and abnormalities
Huge volumes of water needed. Fracking uses huge amounts of water, which must be transported to the fracking site, at significant environmental cost.
Danger from polluted groundwater Toxic or potentially carcinogenic chemicals used may escape and contaminate groundwater around the fracking site.
Dangers to Agriculture Some US states allow the contaminated wastewater to be used for watering cattle, road spraying
for dust control or sent to municipal water-treatment plants that are not equipped to handle the chemicals involved. Informed farmers in the UK are worried.
Earth movement Earthquakes or small earth tremors have been thought to have been caused by the fracking process