The trade-off that John Hanger described is between the economic benefits of natural gas drilling and extraction and the environmental risks involved. The economic benefits include job creation, revenue for communities and companies, and reduced dependence on foreign oil. However, the environmental risks include air and water pollution, habitat destruction, and harm to human health.
Whether this is a good trade depends on one's priorities and values. Hanger argues that it is a good trade because natural gas production creates jobs and revenue while reducing reliance on foreign oil. Others may argue that the environmental risks are too great and that renewable energy sources should be prioritized instead.
The claim that natural gas is a transition fuel comes from the idea that it is a cleaner-burning fossil fuel than coal or oil. While it does produce less carbon dioxide when burned, it still releases methane, a potent greenhouse gas, during extraction and transportation. Additionally, the drilling and extraction process can contaminate soil and water with chemicals and toxins.
In light of these environmental risks, it may not be wise to explore and contract more natural gas. Instead, we should focus on transitioning to truly renewable energy sources that do not carry the same risks and harms to humans and the planet.
john hanger secretary of the pennsylania department of environmental protection describes the natural gas drilling and extraction as a trade off. explain what the trade off is do you believe this is a good trade? natural gas is often described as a transition fuel and a cleaner burning fossil fuel. explain how these claims and incomplete. given what you learned from this movie, is a natural gas a fuel that we should explore and contract more of?
1 answer