“It’s clear that turning a blind eye to fracking’s environmental impact in an effort to reduce coal use is like jumping out of the frying pan into the fire.”

This article makes a mistake that is common: It asserts that the cost of oil is reduced from $90 to $30 a barrel. That’s not the whole cost, not by a longshot. Conside this:

• The costs of climate change are “external” to the pricing model.
• The permanent damage to local property values is “external.”
• The Federal and state subsidies are “external.”
• The incalculable damage caused by toxic contamination of air and water is “external.”
• The adverse health effects and their cost is “external.”

These “externalities” aren’t priced in. Consequently, market forces that should make fossil energy more expensive than renewable energy are defeated. The incentives to develop solar, wind, hydro, tidal, geothermal is reduced by the availability of cheap oil.

Opinion | US, China fracking boom is reshaping global energy sector but at what cost?

For all the well-publicised economic benefits of fracking, we can’t ignore the harm it does to the environment and public health.