PER 2015
households.’ 47 Lastly, fracking in areas can bring benefits to the local community in terms of jobs, which can help to boost the local economy potentially in an area where unemployment may be high due to deprivation. These extra jobs can mean that households can have more disposable income, resulting in more expenditure, investment and saving in the local economy, which accelerates it further. It is clear that fracking can bring large benefits to households in different ways, but now we must move on to the benefits for the businesses carrying out the fracking. Businesses such as Cuadrilla Resources, Igas PLC and Northpet ultimately explore fracking in the UK in order to make a profit. The benefits these businesses could have are large and I shall go on to explain them. However, first the reasons as to why they should experience the benefits need to be laid out. These companies are taking a high risk for researching the deposits of shale gas below the UK as it is possible large amounts of the shale gas will be inaccessible or there may not be as much as predicted. According to IGas, it is thought there may be as much as 170 trillion cubic feet of shale gas 48 . However, this figure could easily be wrong. Therefore, it is reasonable that these businesses are the ones to benefit from the shale gas as they are taking the risk and investing heavily in fracking in the UK. Also, they are the ones who are supplying the UK with energy, and potentially changing the energy mix and reducing energy prices for households. Thirdly, in the local areas where fracking is happening, these businesses such as Cuadrilla Resources are supplying jobs for the local economy, and can help boost the local economy through this. Therefore, after weighing up the players involved, I think ultimately it should be the businesses investing to feel the benefits first, and then the households as it is clear that households will experience benefits in a form of trickle down effect. In conclusion, I think that fracking should be allowed in the UK as it could be a useful energy source, and the companies investing in it should be the first to feel the benefits. The benefits will affect a lot more people than the negatives and the companies are the ones taking the risk for the possible greater good. Thomas Parfitt John Stuart Mill in his essay ‘On Liberty’ writes of the “struggle between liberty and authority” 49 . This conflict seems to have been present throughout human history and has been a catalyst for much innovation in all disciplines, societies and cultures. We most frequently (or noticeably) see this struggle in the form of resistance of oppression. To understand this resistance we must first consider what it is to be oppressed, or lack freedom. Liberty is seen by Mill to be the ability for one to do as they please, except when those actions might harm another or infringe their equivalent individual freedom. A clear distinction needs to be made between this definition of liberty and that of anarchy, unlimited freedom where “practical human sympathy” 50 is the only restriction. Most believe the latter to be idealistic and ultimately untenable. As such a government seems to be required to ensure harm is limited. However this can lead to dispute over the thin line between government regulation and oppression. One matter to consider is that of consent. John Locke indicates via his How has resistance of oppression shaped historical cultures and societies?
47 http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/brookings-now/posts/2015/03/economic-benefits-of-fracking 48 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22748915 49 – Mill, J. S. (1859). On liberty. 50 – Kropotkin, P. (1886). Law and authority.
70
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker