Hydraulic fracturing – “fracking” – of shale rock formations is taking place across the landscape of the ‘true north’. While supporters see in it a promising future for meeting the world’s energy needs, critics see an environmental disaster. Economists, as usual, see unaccounted negative externalities (1).The fracking technique imposes both global and local negative externalities, such as greenhouse gas emissions and groundwater contamination, respectively. An exhaustive list can be found on Ed Dolan’s blog (1); although admittedly, not all of those have been quantified.
Recently, the first and only peer-reviewed study on the link between fracking and livestock health was published in New Solutions: A Journal of Environmental and Occupational Health Policy. Although the death toll of livestock in shale-gas states was not very high, they were reported to have experienced neurological, reproductive and acute gastrointestinal problems (2). The costs to dairy farmers from the death of their capital, and to consumers from potential health risks has now been quantified and can, and must be added atop the other costs already traced to the engineering marvel.
References:
1.http://www.economonitor.com/dolanecon/2012/05/04/fracking-and-the-environment-an-economic-perspective/
2.http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/1784382/livestock_falling_ill_in_fracking_regions_raising_concerns_about_food.html
2 replies on “Add to the Marginal External Costs of Fracking: Livestock Health”
As an economist, we should not ignore the externality cost or benefits when we investigate one policy effects. It is a good point.
Interesting post, supporters usually take the perspective that these can stimulate the market etc. while economists see the externalities and the costs associated with it.