That was the proposition being debated on the Intelligence Squared podcast.

Moderated by ABC News’ John Donvan, the debate featured Deborah Goldberg (Managing Attorney at Earthjustice) and Katherine Hudson (Watershed Program Director at Riverkeeper) who argued for the motion; and Joe Nocera (The New York Times) and Sue Tierney (Analysis Group; Former Assistant Secretary for Policy at U.S. Department of Energy), who argued against the motion.

Here is description of the debate:

Natural gas, touted for its environmental, economic, and national security benefits, is often thought of as the fuel that will “bridge” our transition from oil and coal to renewables. The ability to extract natural gas from shale formations through a method called hydraulic fracturing has unleashed vast, untapped sources—by some estimates, the U.S. now sits on a 100-year supply. But contamination from toxic chemicals used in the fracking process has been the source of increasing health and environmental concerns. Can natural gas be part of a clean energy solution, or is it a dangerous roadblock to a fossil-free future?

For more on fracking, check out Saturday’s post liking to a This American Life story about natural gas in Pennsylvania.

“No Fracking Way: The Natural Gas Boom Is Doing More Harm Than Good”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *