This is my comment to the moderator for the Economist's debate on fracking.  The question proposes was "Do the benefits derived from shale gas outweigh the drawbacks of fracking?".

My answer, of course, was no.  

Dear Sir,
Please ask the debaters how well fracking, or any oil or gas extraction, takes any account for it's negative externalities. Do the oil companies have funds set aside for polluted drinking water or aquifers, spoiled and polluted land (as most states have not even disallowed surface dumping), or ground and structure stability issues after the bedrock underneath is fractured?
And how about the externalities of the energy-intensive process used to obtain this fuel? Will Exxon, now that has publicly admitted its recognition of climate change (for over a decade, even while it was funding various disinformation campaigns) seek to balance the emissions it directly causes, and will cause in the distribution of its primary product?
This magazine has come out in favor of the clear scientific consensus: Global Climate Change is real, increased by human GHG emissions (or solely caused), and will cause a massive amount of widespread economic and social damage if not mitigated.
How do any of the industries involved in fracking seek to counter this?
And if they don't, why we do, as the public, accept it as given that we must pay for their waste?

And yes, all the comments are artificially started with the opener "Dear Sir".  Oh those wacky British!