An environmentalist grapples with John Fetterman’s views on fracking

I admit it: I’m a believer. I believe that climate change is the existential issue of our time. Ultimately, it will affect every living organism on the planet. If we continue to pollute the air, poison the water, warm the oceans, and decimate the forests, our communities, our way of life, and the natural world as we know it will be altered beyond recognition.

In November, Pennsylvania voters will elect a new U.S. senator. We have a choice between a Democrat, John Fetterman, and his Republican challenger, the celebrity doctor Mehmet Oz. Although Fetterman’s environmental policies are imperfect, in this case, I subscribe to the axiom, “Never allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good.”

My perfect candidate would place climate change at the top of their platform, demand an end to fracking, advocate for increased regulation of industries dumping pollutants into our air and water, and promise to introduce legislation to align our country with the U.N. Sustainable Development Goals.

Sadly, my perfect candidate does not exist. But if past is prologue, I have more confidence in Fetterman’s willingness to acknowledge the science and support reasonable climate policy than anyone running on a Republican platform that vows to support “national energy independence and self-sufficiency through intellectual development and regulation reform.” Translation: “Drill, baby, drill” — and allow polluters to continue to pollute.

Although Pennsylvania has made progress in improving air and water quality, fracking continues to be an environmental fault line (pun intended). This process of extracting natural gas from shale uses massive amounts of water, disrupts the natural environment, contributes to air pollution, and helps to prop up an archaic fossil fuel industry at a time when the world is moving toward alternative energy sources. While marginally advantageous to the economy in parts of rural Pennsylvania, fracking is problematic statewide, particularly because Pennsylvania is the only state in the nation that does not tax oil and gas companies for extracting natural resources. So when the wells are exhausted and the gas companies leave (as they are doing now), local communities and the state are left with the cleanup bill.

Fetterman’s position on fracking is not ideal. In 2006, he began his first run for Senate by supporting a moratorium on fracking new wells. However, when faced with opposition from union workers who feared that no new wells would mean fewer jobs, Fetterman softened his objections. He said that if Pennsylvania instituted an extraction tax and imposed stricter environmental regulations, he would withdraw his objection to the development of new wells. Neither of those policy changes ever made it through the state legislature. This year, Fetterman has stated that he believes there will be a “de facto” moratorium on fracking as the state and nation move toward renewable energy sources.

Why should someone concerned about climate change support a candidate who refuses to pull the plug on fracking? First, fracking is just one of many environmental problems we face, and the solutions to all of them are grounded in science. It’s no secret that over the past decade, Republican legislators have downplayed the importance of science and education, spread disinformation about public health measures, and promoted unproven treatments during the COVID-19 pandemic. During the Trump administration, officials even denied the reality of climate change, going so far as to ban the Department of Energy’s climate office from using the term “climate change” in official reports.

» READ MORE: To get action on climate change, change the subject

Second, Fetterman is on record saying, “Climate change is an existential threat.” Oz has given no indication that he understands the gravity of our current environmental challenges, or that the window to prevent climate catastrophe is rapidly closing. He has called for increased oil and coal production as a solution to energy independence with no regard to their climate consequences.

Senators need to represent their states while being attuned to what is best for the entire nation. From his 14 years as the mayor of a small Rust Belt city, Fetterman is acutely aware of the undue burden that industrial pollution and toxic waste place on disadvantaged communities. He has seen firsthand how environmental and economic issues are intertwined. And while I am an environmentalist, I am also a realist.

Pennsylvania is a deeply divided state. The last thing we need is another senator ignoring the inequities that exist in communities of color. I’ve met Fetterman, watched him engage with his audience. He has universal appeal, he feels “real,” he has a story to tell, and his larger-than-life persona will attract attention among a larger pool of voters than a traditional Democrat.

The only way to break the stranglehold that minority opinions have on our nation’s environmental laws is to ensure that supporters of sound energy policy and strong environmental protections have the 60 votes required to invoke cloture and bring legislation to the Senate floor. I am hopeful that John Fetterman will be a strong voice in the chorus calling for change.

Susan Gordon is a former public relations director, freelance journalist, and lifelong resident of Bucks and Montgomery Counties.