Should We Frack?

Foreign Affairs' Brain Trust Weighs In

A woman protests fracking in California, May 30, 2013. Lucy Nicholson / Courtesy Reuters

We at Foreign Affairs have recently published a number of articles about the shale revolution. Those articles sparked a heated debate, so we decided to ask a broader pool of experts to state whether they agree or disagree with the following statement and to rate their confidence level about that answer.

For the United States, the benefits of the shale revolution far outweigh the costs.


Full Responses

CARTER F. BALES is Chairman & Managing Partner of NewWorld, which he co-founded in June 2009.
Strongly Disagree, Confidence Level 10
All hydrocarbon energy sources are bad for the United States and bad for the world in that they produce CO2 and other noxious byproducts that are rapidly driving the world toward a climate disaster with the death of nature, the destruction of our infrastructure, and massive avoidable costs of trying to adapt to a new climate reality. The cost of not addressing the drivers

Loading, please wait...

This article is a part of our premium archives.

To continue reading and get full access to our entire archive, please subscribe.

Related Articles

This site uses cookies to improve your user experience. Click here to learn more.