Ideology in My Controversy

Through research done and the sources found in my previous three blog posts, I will lay out the foundation of the controversy on fracking in this blog post with guidance from specific questions.

The Weekly Bull "No Fracking-London Protest" 1/26/2015 via Flickr. Attribution-Non Commercial License.

Who is involved in the controversy?

There aren't any specific groups of people that make up either side to the debate. One side favors the use of hydraulic fracturing for its use in energy production and consumption where one side opposes fracking because of its alleged health risks to drinking water and other environmental factors.

Who are some of the major speakers/writers for each group?

Americans Against Fracking is the largest organization against hydraulic fracturing.Vivienne Westwood is also a very high profile anti-fracking spokesperson from the UK. 

Brooke Alexander, a former FOXNews correspondant, is a notable spokesperson and lobbyist for the use of fracking, but besides her, there aren't many public speakers for the system. Marcellus Shale Coalition, American Petroleum Institute, and several other gas/oil organizations are the biggest supporters due to their obvious investment in the use of fracking.

What kind of social/economic/political/cultural power does each side have?

Supporters of fracking tend to be mostly right-wing and are often tied to the organizations that profit from fracking such as the ones stated above. Anti-frackers are mostly either liberal or are locally affected by fracking and its dangerous effect on their water supply. 

Both sides of the argument have a great amount of support so any given person could favor either side. It depends on their ideology.

What resources are available to the different positions?

Both sides use research studies to support their side or counter their opposition. Pro-frackers use economic studies to show the benefits of fracking to the economy, as well as scientific studies to contradict the claims of environmental damage as a result. Those against fracking mostly use scientific research to show the unsafe water and alleged atmospheric decay that comes with the energy extraction process. With the exception of scholarly research journals, almost every source has bias because its intent is to support or counter the claims of one side.

What does each group value?

Those against fracking value the safety of the population that is affected locally by fracking where those that support fracking mostly value the economic benefits of the process and the advantages of using energy other than imported oil which causes damage to the atmosphere.

What counts as evidence for the different positions?

Both sides will mostly cite any "research study" from any organization to support their position, however most of these sources are biased. Anti-frackers who are close to fracking operations use their sinks with dirty water as a claim that the process indeed contaminates their drinking supply.

Is there a power differential between the groups?

The power can be associated with those in support of fracking because at the system is still being used, it can be concluded that their opposition's influence isn't strong enough to ban the process as of now.

Is there any acknowledged common ground between the groups?

Both sides can mostly agree that their is some correlation with unsafe practices of hydraulic fracturing that can cause some degree of contamination to drinking water. Another place of common ground is that both positions agree that the production of energy domestically is a great economic benefit, no matter which country they reside in.

Is there any unacknowledged common ground?

The obvious lack of common ground exists in the question of the extent to which the process of fracking contaminates the water supply and if the economic and other environmental benefits can outweigh it.

Do the various groups listen to each other?

The professionals involved in this controversy such as the scientists conducting research, are very open to communicate and collaborate so that they can find the effects of fracking and work to develop a system that is more safe. The average person or politician will stick to their side very forcefully and often not listen to their opposition due ti their strong commitment to whichever side of the debate they support.