Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Is Shale Gas Development Sustainable? Competing Discourses on Fracking in the United States

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Sustainability Communication Reader

  • 1609 Accesses

Abstract

Shale gas development (SGD), commonly known as fracking, is an emerging technology that is able to access previously untapped deposits of natural gas. Given the high price of oil and the importance of domestically produced energy led investors and the industry to turn to natural gas and to expand drilling in several places in the United States. This new-found source of energy and wealth also comes with a heavy environmental footprint and potential threat to public health. These competing forces led to one of the most heated environmental controversies in the United States in recent times. As a way to better appreciate the dispute over SGD, the United Nation’s sustainable development goals on the economy, energy, water, land, and climate action are used to examine the competing discourses. It is necessary to understand the several discourses used in this debate to better design sustainable communication messages to stakeholders.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 64.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • APHA (American Public Health Association) (2018) The environmental and occupational health impacts of unconventional oil and gas industry. https://www.apha.org/policies-and-advocacy/public-health-policy-statements/policy-database/2019/01/28/impacts-of-unconventional-oil-and-gas-industry

  • Auyero J, Hernandez M, Stitt ME (2017) Grassroots Activism in the Belly of the Beast: A Relational Account of the Campaign Against Urban Fracking in Texas, Social Problems, spx035, https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1093/socpro/spx035

  • Bamberger M, Oswald R (2014) The real cost of fracking: how America’s shale gas boom is threatening our families, pets, and food. Beacon Press, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Beedeejaun Y (2017) Exploring the intersections between local knowledge and environmental regulation: a study of shale gas extraction in Texas and Lancashire. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space 35:417–433

    Google Scholar 

  • Briggle A (2015) A field philosopher’s guide to fracking: how one Texas town stood up to big oil and gas. Liveright Publishing, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Buttny R (2015) Contesting hydrofracking during an inter-governmental hearing: accounting by reworking or challenging the question. Discourse Commun 9:423–440

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buttny R (2017) Accounting for “How We Know” about the safety/risks with hydrofracking: an inter-governmental hearing on the revised environmental impact statement on whether to permit hydrofracking in New York State. Journal of Risk Research. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2017.1378251

  • Buttny, R. (2019). Debating hydrofracking: the discursive construction of risk. Front Commun: Sci Environ Commun, 4/5. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2019.00005

  • Chen S, Gunster S (2016) “Ethereal carbon”: Legitimizing liquefied natural gas in British Columbia. Environ Commun 10:305–321

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christenson DP, Goldfarb JL, Kriner DL (2017) Cost, benefits, and the malleability of public support for “fracking.” Energy Policy 105:407–417

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colaneri K (29. August 2014) DEP publishes details on 248 cases of water damage from gas development. StateImpact Pennsylvania. https://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvania/2014/08/29/dep-publishes-details-on-248-cases-of-water-damage-from-gas-development/

  • Cooley R, Casagrande DG (2017) Marcellus Shale as golden goose: the discourse of development and the marginalization of resistance in Northcentral Pennsylvania. In: Jalbert K, Willow A, Casagrande D, Paladino S (Eds). Extraction: Impacts, engagements, and alternative futures. Routledge Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis CE (2017) Shaping state fracking policies in the U.S.: An analysis of who, what, how. State and Local Government Review. 49:140–150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Debunking Gasland (2012). Energy in Depth. https://www.google.com/search?q=industry+criticism+of+gasland&rlz=1C1GCEA_enUS834US834&oq=industry+criticism+of+gasland&aqs=chrome..69i57.8295j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

  • DOE (US Energy Information Association) (2018) The United States is now the largest global crude oil producer. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=40973

  • Dodge J (2017) Crowded advocacy: Framing dynamics in the fracking controversy in New York. Voluntas 28:888–915

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dokshin FA (2017) Whose backyard and what’s at issue? Spatial and ideological dynamics of local opposition to fracking in New York state, 2010–2013. Am Sociol Rev 72(5):408–446

    Google Scholar 

  • Dryzek JS (2013) The politics of the earth: rnvironmental discourses, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Duggan-Hass D, Ross RM, Allom WD (2013) The science beneath the surface: a very short guide of the Marcellus Shale. Paleontological Research Institution, Ithaca

    Google Scholar 

  • Etzion D, Gehman J (2019) Going public: debating matters of concern as an imperative for management scholars. Acad Manag Rev 44:1–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evensen D, Clarke C, Stedman R (2014) A New York or Pennsylvania state of mind: Social representations of gas development in the Marcellus Shale. J Environ Stud Sci 4:65–77

    Google Scholar 

  • Evensen D, Stedman R (2018) ‘Fracking’: Promotor and destroyer of ‘the good life.’ J Rural Stud, 59: 142–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evensen D, Stedman R, Brown-Steiner B (2017) Resilient but not sustainable? Public perceptions of shale gas development via hydrofracking. Ecol Soc, 22(1):8. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09022-220108

  • Finewood MH, Stroup LJ (2012) Fracking and the Neoliberalization of the Hydro‐Social Cycle in Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale. J ContempWater Res Educ 147:72–79

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox, J. (2010). Gaslands: a documentary film. HBO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griswold E (2018a) Amity and prosperity: one family and the fracturing of America. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Guignard J (2013) A certain uncertainty: drilling into the rhetoric of Marcellus Shale natural gas development. In: Goggin PN (ed) Environmental rhetoric and ecologies of place. Routledge, New York, pp 15–27

    Google Scholar 

  • Gullion JS (2015) Fracking the neighborhood: reluctant activists and natural gas drilling. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Haijer MA (1995) The politics of environmental discourse. Clarendon Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Howarth RW (2019) Ideas and perspectives: is shale gas a major driver of recent increase in global atmospheric methane? Biogeosciences 16:3033–3046

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howarth RW, Ingraffea A, Engelder T (2011) Should fracking stop? Nature 477:271–275

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) (2018) Summary for Policymakers of IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C approved by governments.https://www.ipcc.ch/2018/10/08/summary-for-policymakers-of-ipcc-special-report-on-global-warming-of-1-5c-approved-by-governments/

  • Jacquet J, Kay D (2014) The unconventional boomtown: updating the impact model to fit new spatial and temporal scales. J RuralCommunity Dev 9:1–23

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacquet JJ, et al (2018) A decade of Marcellus Shale: impacts to people, policy, and culture from 2008 to 2018 in the greater mid-Atlantic region of the United States. Extr ind soc 5:596–609

    Google Scholar 

  • Kiernan PJ (2012) An analysis of hydrofracturing gubernatorial decision. Albany Government Law Review, 769. Retrieved from LexisNexis. https://www.lexisnexis.com.libezproxy2.syr.edu/hottopics/lnacademic/

  • Kroepsch A (2016) New rig on the block: spatial policy discourse and the new suburban geography of energy production on Colorado’s front range. Environ Commun 10:337–351

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ladd AE (2018) Introduction: energy matters. In: Ladd AE (Ed). Fractured communities: Risk, impacts, and protest against hydraulic fracking in U.S. shale gas regions. New Brunswick, Rutgers University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leifert H (2018, 11) Human-induced seismicity.Natural History, 126, 6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malin S (2014) There’s no real choice but to sign: Neoliberalization and normalization of hydraulic fracturing on Pennsylvania farmland. Journal of Environmental Studies and Science 4:17–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mando J (2016) Constructing the vicarious experience of proximity in a Marcellus Shale public hearing. Environ Commun 10:352–364

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matz J, Renfrew D (2015) Selling “Fracking”: Energy in Depth and the Marcellus Shale. Environ Commun 9:288–306. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2014.929157

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mazur A (2018) Technical controversies over public policy. Routledge, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • McGlade C, Ekins P (2015) The geographical distribution of fossil fuels unused when limiting global warming to 2 °C. Nat 517:187–190

    Google Scholar 

  • McGraw S (2012) The end of country: dispatches from the frack zone. Random House, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Metze T, Dodge J (2016) Discourse coalitions on hydro-fracking in Europe and the United States. Environ Commun 10:365–379

    Google Scholar 

  • Neville KJ, Baka J, Gamper-Rabindran S, Bakker K, Andresson S, Vengosh A, Lin A, Singh JM, Weinthal E (2017) Debating unconventional energy: social political, and economic implication. Ann Rev Environ Resour 42:241–266

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) (2016) Worker exposure to silica during hydraulic fracturing. https://www.osha.gov/dts/hazardalerts/hydraulic_frac_hazard_alert.html

  • Pezzullo PC, Cox R (2018) Environmental communication and the public sphere, 5th edn. Sage Pub, Thousand Oaks, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Pidgeon N, Thomas M, Partridge T, Evensen D, Harthorn BH (2017) Hydraulic fracturing: a risk for environment, energy security, and affordability? In: Kasperson RE (ed) Risk conundrums. Routledge, New York, pp 177–188

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Raimi D (2017a) The fracking debate: the risks, benefits, and uncertainties of the shale revolution. Columbia University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rich JL (2016) Drilling is just the beginning: romaniticizing rust belt identities in the campaign for shale gas. Environ Commun 10:292–304

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarewitz D (2004) How science makes environmental controversies worse. Environ Sci Policy 7:385–403

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sica CE, Huber M (2017) “We can’t be dependent on anybody”: The rhetoric of “energy independence” and the legitimation of fracking in Pennsylvania. Extr Ind Soc 4:337–343

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith MR (2019) Strange Brew: Art, Protest, and the Anti-Fracking Movement. Afterimage 46:3–16

    Google Scholar 

  • Sneegas G (2016) Media representations of hydrofracking and agriculture: a New York case study. Extr Ind Soc 3:95–102

    Google Scholar 

  • Sovacool BK (2014) Cornucopia or curse? Reviewing the costs and benefits of shale gas hydraulic fracturing (fracking). Renew Sustain Energy Rev 37:249–264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soraghan M (24. February 2011). Groundtruthing academy award nominee ‘Gasland.’ The New York Times. https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/gwire/2011/02/24/24greenwire-groundtruthing-academy-award-nominee-gasland-33228.html?pagewanted=print

  • US EIA (2020) What is U.S. electricity generation by energy source? https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3

  • Valencia C, Martinet MC (2016) Local control: authority, resistance, and knowledge production in fracking. WIRE’s water: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1197

  • Vasi IB, Walker ET, Johnson JS, Tan HF (2015) “No fracking way!” Documentary film, discursive opportunity, and local opposition against hydraulic fracturing in the United States, 2010–2013. Am Sociol Rev 80:934–959

    Google Scholar 

  • Weible CM, Heikkila T (2016) Comparing the politics of hydraulic fracturing in New York, Colorado, and Texas. Rev Policy Res 33:232–250

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilber T (2015a) Under the surface: Fracking, fortunes, and the fate of the Marcellus Shale (updated version). Cornell University Press, Ithaca

    Google Scholar 

  • Willow AJ, Zak R, Vilaplana D, Sheeley D (2014) The contested landscape of unconventional energy development: a report from Ohio’s shale gas country. J Environ Stud Sci 4:56–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • World Commission on Environment and Development (1987) Our common future. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

Further Reading and Viewing

  • Fox J (2010) Gaslands: A documentary film. HBO

    Google Scholar 

  • Griswold E (2018b) Amity and prosperity: one family and the fracturing of America. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Gullion JS (2015) Fracking the neighborhood: reluctant activists and natural gas drilling. Cambridge, MA, MIT Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Ladd AE (2018) Introduction: energy matters. In: Ladd AE (Ed.). Fractured communities: risk, impacts, and protest against hydraulic fracking in U.S. shale gas regions. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick

    Google Scholar 

  • Raimi D (2017b) The fracking debate: the risks, benefits, and uncertainties of the shale revolution. Columbia University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wilber T (2015b) Under the surface: fracking, fortunes, and the fate of the Marcellus Shale (updated version). Cornell University Press, Ithaca

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Communication & Rhetorical Studies, Syracuse University, New York, USA

    Richard Buttny

Authors
  1. Richard Buttny
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Richard Buttny .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Communication and Arts, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia

    Franzisca Weder

  2. Department of Media and Communications, University of Klagenfurt, Klagenfurt, Austria

    Larissa Krainer

  3. Department of Media and Communications, University of Klagenfurt, Klagenfurt, Austria

    Matthias Karmasin

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Buttny, R. (2021). Is Shale Gas Development Sustainable? Competing Discourses on Fracking in the United States. In: Weder, F., Krainer, L., Karmasin, M. (eds) The Sustainability Communication Reader. Springer VS, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-31883-3_20

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-31883-3_20

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer VS, Wiesbaden

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-658-31882-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-658-31883-3

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation