The New York Times claims to have found “An Industrial Rebound” in Youngstown, Ohio. (photo: David Maxwell/NYT)
Today the front page of the New York Times tells us about an industrial comeback in the America’s heartland. Sounds like good news, right? “Boom in Energy Spurs Industry in the Rust Belt” reads the headline, over a story about a factory in Youngstown, Ohio, that is alive…thanks to fracking:
The turnaround is part of a transformation spreading across the heartland of the nation, driven by a surge in domestic oil and gas production that is changing the economic calculus for old industries and downtrodden cities alike.
Here in Ohio, in an arc stretching south from Youngstown past Canton and into the rural parts of the state where much of the natural gas is being drawn from shale deep underground, entire sectors like manufacturing, hotels, real estate and even law are being reshaped. A series of recent economic indicators, including factory hiring, shows momentum building nationally in the manufacturing sector.
It’s not that fracking or oil drilling aren’t controversial; the Times‘ Nelson Schwartz notes that the “environmental consequences of the American energy boom…are being fiercely debated nationwide.” But Ohio isn’t like other parts of the country where opposition to fracking is intense, “because residents are so desperate for the kind of economic growth that fracking can bring, whatever the risks.”
The Times piece is just the latest example of journalism that pits “the environment” against the “economy”–protecting water is one thing, but creating jobs provides something more tangible. And on the latter score, the Times is here to present the strongest case: “A 2013 McKinsey study…estimated that production of shale gas and so-called tight oil from shale could help create up to 1.7 million jobs nationally.”
Jobs in Youngstown, still down by a quarter despite fracking “rebound” (CEPR/BLS)
But there are some problems with this picture. For one, as economist Dean Baker (Beat the Press, 9/9/14) points out, it appears that supposed hiring boom in Youngstown is oversold:
The Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that manufacturing employment in Youngstown is still down by more than 12 percent from its pre-recession level…. There is a comparable story with Canton.
While fracking jobs may have helped bring these areas up from the troughs they experienced at the bottom of the downturn, employment in both metropolitan areas is still far below 2007 levels. No one thought either city was booming at that time.
There’s also the question of whether the study projecting that fracking will create 1.7 million jobs is anything more than wishful (and/or profitable) thinking. Raúl Ilargi Meijer at the Automatic Earth blog (8/6/13) points out that shale oil wells run dry after a very short period of time, while replacement wells are generally less and less productive, since the most promising sites are drilled first. So, he says,
McKinsey’s prediction of 1.7 million additional jobs in the US shale industry by 2020 [is] not just suspect, it’s ridiculous with 40 percent depletion rates. Not even going to happen if they drill another 1.7 million wells.
(cc photo: Daniel Reichert)
But the most important issue is one that goes entirely unmentioned in the piece: climate change. If you recognize that the planet faces a profound climate crisis, then any kind of new fossil fuel extraction–be it oil or fracked natural gas–presents a fundamental step in the wrong direction. And the evidence is that methane emissions related to fracking could be as bad–or worse–for the atmosphere than burning coal (Mother Jones, 9/8/14).
The Times story is unfortunately typical in discussing fracking without mentioning global warming (FAIR Blog, 5/15/12). Last night, the PBS NewsHour (9/8/14) presented a look at the intense political debate over fracking in Colorado. The segment was long–a rarity in TV news–and presented a fairly nuanced look at the issues in one part of the country. But it never mentioned climate change.
It recalls the question Jim Naureckas asked a couple years ago:
You have to wonder: Do journalists covering energy issues imagine they and their loved ones are going to be living on another planet in the not-too-distant future?
We are exterminating the human race and the media are still in nearly total denial.
McKinsey’s job is to sell reports and consulting services to interested parties, in this case to the thousands of local governments desperate for new revenues along with thousands of firms eager to sell something, anything to the shale oil and gas drillers in order to get in on the boom so to speak. Why do the oil and gas companies only speak to the upside of hydraulic fracking? Because they are trying really hard to sell us something as in their stocks. Why do large consulting services firms like IHS, McKinsey et Al also speak of all things wonderful shale gas? Because they are only going to sell the good news, not the bad or the tough news.
It recalls the question Jim Naureckas asked a couple years ago:
“You have to wonder: Do journalists covering energy issues imagine they and their loved ones are going to be living on another planet in the not-too-distant future?”
No, the simple matter is they people in the corporations couldn’t give one fig more in caring about this because the Trolls and Morons running the shows do not think, they don’t have a clue about what the future, in fact if they think more than 6 seconds ahead it is a complete accident. They are small children who have their chocolate treat and that is all they are going to care about.
It was best immortalized by our then Idiot in Chief, Bush Baby when asked what was going to happen to Texas, when the bill came due for the 10 million surplus that he handed away, while cutting another 109 million a year in taxes, just before he ran out the door to grab the Office of President: His response “I don’t know, but I am glad that I am not going to be there”.
The people who “Love their gold” more than anything else are the problem; they are they idiots we always see in the movies, the ones who have so much greed, they end up killing everyone in the party for the “pretty jewels and gold” and then end up being killed because they didn’t think far enough ahead to see they killed off the people they needed to survive.
Anymore, the “love of Gold” has become a serious “mentally ill” issue in this country.
(Hypothetical:) I need a job. I have children, and will probably have grandchildren. The only job I can get is in support of fracking. But if I do this job, I’ll be undermining the future. But if I don’t take the job, somebody else will. Do you have a solution?
It gets worse. Columbia’s Center on Global Energy Policy, which is totally fossil & nuke-peered, is hosting a 9/22 panel, “European Energy Security, Russian Policy, and US LNG Exports.” To say this center is disdainful of academically credentialed environmentalists would be an understatement. If one is not in or near NYC, the event will be live streamed: http://us6.campaign-archive1.com/?u=20fec43d5e4f6bc717201530a&id=2996f3c809&e=e3480e539c
Most people I know, still praise PBS and NPR as progressive and cutting edge. I couldn’t disagree more. Then again, most of them would rather change the subject when it comes to climate justice, CO2, tracking, oil pipelines or Tarsands. It is disheartening. As a teacher, I keep trying to think of ways to educate before it’s too late.
See! In my last post, even my computer spell check doesn’t recognize the shortcut term for hydraulic fracturing or fracking.
As Padremellyrn points out there is serious, widespread mental illness in our country. One aspect of this mental illness is what hil2 wants to combat: the refusal to be educated. The worse things get, the deeper liberals bury their heads in the sand. They get all self-righteous about the idiocy of right-wingers but they are so committed to the SUPERSTITION of progress that they refuse to look at the world as it is and the direction it’s going. I used to try to share information with people, such as Obama’s team of advisors prior to being elected, but now no longer bother.
I’m wondering if there isn’t some connection between the alleged behavior of the 9/11 hijackers and that of those who continue to act as if there is no danger of a mega-disaster caused by climate chaos. Perhaps they secretly believe the warnings and take them as fact. The hijackers partied wantonly before the boarded the airplanes according to some sources, knowing that they were doomed if they agreed to do what their superiors asked them to do, but concluded that it was worth it as long as they could experience the joy of unconstrained youth before they died. Things are great right now for most Americans but they are afraid of the future, which they may rightly conclude contains disaster, and wish to party now while they still can, rather than trust in a future they can’t believe in.