Do you support the use of hydraulic fracking to extract oil and natural gas resources?

Yes

Yes, but increase oversight

Yes, but not in heavily populated areas

i dont even know what that means

Yes but only minimally and transitionally as we pursue renewables

Yes, apply appropriate oversight, no subsidies, and mandate cost of energy = cost to produce energy + cost to environment/cleanup .

It should be banned in some areas but not all

Yes, but only for now, not in the long term. We can’t realistically switch to clean energy at the snap of a finger, so we should use it now but gradually decrease it as we taper off fossil fuels in general in favor of green energy.

Yes, temporarily while we invest in cleaner alternatives

Yes, with oversight to ensure public health is being negatively affected. Should move toward renewable energy

Yes, but companies should be held liable for negligence and damages to property and human life. Also, no more industry secrets. Citizens have a right to know what chemicals are being pumped into the soil.

Yes, oil and gas production is impossible without fracturing the rock formations. Similarly, geothermal absolutely requires 'fracking'.

No, we should pursue more sustainable resources instead. But, if these sustainable resources are not feasible to extract oil and natural gas resources, and it is necessary to acquire those oil and natural gas resources, then it is okay to use hydraulic fracking.

Kinda, but there shoukd be increased oversight, not done in heavily populated areas & we should pursue more sustainable energy resources simultaneously

More info needs to be presented to American citizens who still believe that the climate crisis is fake to show them the negative effects on all life on earth

I have mixed feelings about hydraulic fracturing (fracking). On one hand, it has helped increase energy production and reduce dependence on foreign oil, which can benefit the economy and energy security. On the other hand, fracking raises serious environmental concerns like water contamination, air pollution, and increased seismic activity. Because of these risks, I believe strict regulations and careful oversight are necessary if fracking continues. Balancing energy needs with protecting public health and the environment is essential.

Yes, but more info needs to be presented to American citizens who still believe that the climate crisis is fake

I don't think it's great for the environment but until we have other affordable to the average person energy sources I can't be mad at it

No, the research shows the long term effects of fracking are earth quakes through oklahoma and the southwest. Fracling has 0 benifit to our earth

Yes, but we should still try and find new and improved ways to get or have our recourses in order to prevent harsh climate change.

Fracking can be useful as a transition energy source, but it needs strict regulations to protect the environment and public health. Ultimately, investing more in renewable energy is key to a sustainable future.

Yes, but it should be heavily regulated and should be phased out for more sustainable energy sources such as wind or water.

Fracking should be heavily regulated and phased down. While it’s played a key role in U.S. energy independence, the environmental and health consequences are serious. Strict oversight is critical — and investment should increasingly shift toward clean, renewable alternatives.

We have many positive and negative points. And by learning about the negative points, I know they would have an impact on environmental pollution.

I support to an extent. I think the oversight of the operation should be increased as well as restrictions. I also believe we should add more sustainable engird resources.

Yes, but not in heavily populated areas in order to keep the citizens living in the area safe and also plan to end this when mostly everyone can afford renewable energy.

Maybe, if we can figure out a way to keep the environment safe while extracting oil at such a productive rate, it would be a lot better.

I do not fully understand the consequences of fracking. We can develop alternative energy programs however the Big Corporations still hold the whip hand

Long term I think it's a bad idea. However short term I tolerate it to improve US energy independence.

For the time being, given that it is necessary we should continue using it, however, greater attempts and efforts should be made to invest in more sustainable alternative resources. Moreover, the process should be strictly regulated and pose no harm to neighboring communities.

ABSOLUTELY NOT, fracking is known for being awful for the environment and there are no properly trained individuals to do it with causing major damage. Especially where it is wished to be done, BY WATER SOURCES, that's subjecting the people to literal poison and hazardous material.

No, Nuclear energy could be used as it is a natural occurring process that gets bad press based off of 1 catastrophic event

No, because it creates long-term problems for communities which would deplete what ever savings was made in the long run with long lasting negative effects.

Yes, so long as fracking does not occur within national forests and Native American lands, also nuclear energy must become our main source of energy

right now its what we use in everyday life its how our country functions but that doesn't mean we should keep that up. we should be looking at alternatives but until we find one then this will just have to do for now.

If we were to get rid of fracking, jobs would disappear and communities would perish. For example, communities in Texas, Pennsylvania, and North Dakota would suffer if fracking were to be banned.

Yes, it is okay. However, there needs to be more oversight, and clearly laid out plans to end the process in favor of more sustainable and clean sources for resources

I support fracking, because they provide energy and power to homes, buildings, factories, etc. if we were to get rid of these sectors of energy, jobs would disappear and communities would decay.

No, we need to spend more money and time into finding and perfecting alternatives for engery. But until then fracking should continue in unlocallized areas

Yes, but ensure the drilling is done properly to not contaminate water sources. Any and all contamination will be cause for enacting tort law.

Only do it with the intent to eventually phase it out and pursue alternative energy sources instead.

YES, BUT we should pursue more sustainable energy resources, in the short term its fine, but we do need to create a framework that is able to treat this issue in the long term

I think that fracking is important as a temporary solution, oil is a very useful source of energy and right now there's no better or cleaner source. I think we should strive for a better energy source but until then keep oil around.

I feel it is more efficient, however if a cleaner way to do the process and a safer procedure/strategy is found, then that would be better.

No, fracking is highly damaging to the environment. We need to pursue more sustainable resources or more sustainable ways of aquiring oil and natural gas.

i think we should lessen the amount we are fracking and add more sustainable more environmentally friendly energy sources

i understand how this supports the economy but i advocate for nature and the harmful effects, i personally dislike it but i also understand it.

Yes but only if we are willing to dedicate the resources to stop any contamination and prevent any mishaps that will result from this action

Yes, but only with strong environmental protections and not in populated or vulnerable areas. We should also invest in cleaner, affordable energy for the future while using resources wisely to keep costs down for families now.

Yes, but research should be done to find alternatives that incentives can be provided for switching to

Yes, but focus should be shifted to it being the alternative to clean energy and keeping fracking as a matter of urgency. The current electrical grid and fuel resources would not be able to survive without it however there is consistent improvement on other technologies to provide the needed fuel, so at some point it has to be phased out.

For now, but we should regulate it more closely and plan to phase it out over time as renewables become more abundant.

No, I don't want to hurt the Earth. Find other solutions to make oil finding more safer for the environment

Yes but not in heavily populated areas whether with animals or people. also conduct research on more sustainable ways.

No, because this is really harmful to the Earth. We can find other, less harmful ways to obtain resources.

Yes, for now. We have too many things that rely on oil and natural gas. Continue drilling, but also provide more incentives for green energy, such as nuclear.

I think to much of it is an issue but to get what is needed is okay. Over fracking can cause damage to the environment leading to later environmental issues.

Yes, but increase oversight No, we should pursue more sustainable energy resources instead measure the long term effects of fracking

No, But limit it away from populated area and pursue sustainable energy resources to ween away from fracking.

Yes, I support limited use but I think we should attempt to gradually transition to using other forms of energy so we rely on non-renewable sources less

Until we can find a sustainable, affordable, and cost friendly option, yes, with severe oversight and limitations to prevent ecosystem and animal harm.

Yes but we need to provide resources to the communities effected by the consequences caused by fracking

Yes, for now in order to make more money and lower fuel prices. However we need to invest in research and implementation of a nuclear/renewable energy system and eventually make the switch once all the infrastructure is in place

I believe that we need to pressure more sustainable energy and identify and research the long term effects of fracking

Yes but with oversight and accountability with safety regulations and bylaws on how we get the oil and gas

Not support but tolerance for fracking, It's important that we search for alternatives that are more sustainable options.

I think water and sand is fine to use when extracting oil I don't think we should use chemicals to help extract oil because it can harm the earth and water sources.

Kinda, couldn't care really, God will take us all one day so what other people do its their problem especially the gov. I can't do much about what the government does.

I think its a good and easy way out, but it is ruining the planet. So I think there should be more research about it to find a better thing.

Although it is important, we should try to use nuclear energy instead. There's always the "Chernobyl Argument" of why we shouldn't use it, but the whole reason it went haywire is because it was poorly managed, and I'm sure the USA could do better.

I do support it, but we also need to research more into other energy resources so that we can decrease the amount of fracking as we increase the amount of other energy sources

they may continue unless we have another better way to solve the issue, but in less populated areas where they may not contaminate the water or environment around them. Plus we need to make sure it is safe. (more research)

Both yes and no i understand the reason for fracking , but its also so dangerous and unhealthy for us its lead to so many health compilations

yes I do believe that we need to rely on our own country for oil but also we should do it under regulation in order to keep the surrounding environment safe

while I think it is a worth it I also think we could come up with a way to limit the amount of toxic gases that emerge from fracking.

In regulation, I think that its is convenient for us but we could do better for our world and we probably should.

Yes, but only in the case of favoring fracking for worse alternatives like coal or oil burning, as fracking is the healthiest type of fossil fuel.

Yes, but it should be further regulated and tested to prevent wildlife habitat destruction and potential microquakes.

Depends. The risks could be water pollution and earthquakes. If they do it right, Then yeah, I think I can support it.

I support it but only if it is heavily regulated and can't be outsourced. Then once our reliance on oil goes down start to slowly faze it out unless we find a way to safely extract oil without any damage to the environment.

Yes, but only as a temporary energy source until cleaner alternative infrastructure can be established

I think we should pursue cleaner energy that is sustainable over a long period of time, but I don't think you can just dismantle fracking in the meantime. So I will say no, and that I do not support what it does to the environment, but I support the fact that it is needed right now.

Yes, but only for the short term. Oversight and regulations should be increased while we pursue more sustainable resources.

Yes, but we should have other options as well, not have all or the bulk of our energy coming from oil and natural gas.

Yes so that we are less relient on other contries oil, but we should still work towards going green.

no because this method can contaminate ground water and other studies have shown that it can lead to more earthquakes in earthquake prone regions such as California

Yes, for the sake of low unemployment, low inflation, low energy prices, good trade, a good supply chain, and a good GDP.

Yes, for the sake of low unemployment, job creation, low energy prices, low inflation, a good GDP, good trade, and a good supply chain.

Yes, but not in heavily populated areas and we should actively pursue more sustainable energy resources instead

Yes, but not in heavily populated areas and increase incentives to transition to sustainable and renewable resources.

Yes, this will help the economy in so many ways such as job creation, substantial GDP performance, keeping the unemployment rate low, keeping energy prices low, and helping trade and the supply chain