Fracking’s Role in the 2024 Election: An Uncertain Future for Pennsylvania and Beyond

Overview

As the 2024 presidential election approaches, fracking has emerged as a critical issue, particularly in battleground states like Pennsylvania. This article examines the complex role that fracking plays in shaping voter opinions, political strategies, and public health concerns. With a growing body of evidence highlighting the environmental and health risks—such as water contamination, air pollution, and increased seismic activity—voters are increasingly divided on the practice. 

At the same time, the economic benefits touted by the oil and gas industry often fall short of expectations, creating a misleading narrative that influences political decision-making. This article unpacks fracking’s impact on public opinion, the political maneuvering surrounding the issue, and the real consequences for communities living near drilling sites. By exploring these dimensions, readers will gain a clearer understanding of how fracking could shape the outcome of the 2024 election, not just in Pennsylvania but across the nation.

A visualization of the high density of wells drilled in eastern Ohio and southwestern Pennsylvania. Map by Matt Kelso, FracTracker Alliance, 2022

Voter Opinions

In 2012, studies showed that 58 percent of people in the U.S. didn’t know or were undecided about whether they supported or opposed fracking, while 20 percent were opposed and 22 percent supported it. Since then, public opinion has become more skeptical of fracking. According to Sightline Institute, “Gallup public opinion polling has documented the trend well: in 2015 Americans were evenly split on their support or opposition to fracking. But by 2016 Americans opposed it by an 11-point margin, a figure that widened to 18 points in opposition by 2017.”

In Pennsylvania, voters remain divided. A recent Muhlenberg College poll found that while opinions are split, the majority of voters favor stronger regulations and increased transparency, especially regarding chemical disclosures and health monitoring. A separate public opinion study conducted by Upswing Research for the Ohio River Valley Institute revealed that nearly 90 percent of Pennsylvania support stricter fracking regulations, with more than 4 in 10 favoring an outright ban.

Political Maneuvering and the Election

Despite overwhelming evidence on fracking’s risks, some constituents still view the oil and gas industry favorably despite limited evidence to support its economic promises. This creates a political landscape where elected officials are pressured to prioritize the industry over environmental and public health concerns.

In Pennsylvania, Governor Josh Shapiro gained a reputation for holding the oil and gas industry accountable by leading investigations as attorney general that exposed violations in fracking practices, including environmental harms and health impacts. At the time, his strong stance earned him credibility among environmental advocates and those seeking greater regulation of the fracking industry. However, since becoming governor, Shapiro’s position has shifted as he attempts to embrace an “all-of-the-above energy strategy,” which aims to support renewable energy development while maintaining Pennsylvania’s natural gas industry. This shift reflects the political reality in a state where energy production is touted as a key economic driver.

Shapiro’s recent collaboration with CNX, a major natural gas producer, epitomizes the trade-off that many politicians make in energy-rich states. The partnership, which focuses on self-monitoring and environmental transparency, has been framed as an effort to improve the environmental practices of the natural gas industry. Shapiro has touted the initiative as a proactive step toward better environmental oversight and has positioned it as a way to address public concerns while still supporting the industry’s economic contributions.

However, critics argue that this partnership does not go far enough. Environmental groups, including FracTracker Alliance, have expressed frustration that Shapiro’s approach falls short of the stringent protections he once advocated for as attorney general. These groups have pointed to the 2020 grand jury report, which provided clear recommendations for stronger regulatory safeguards to protect communities near fracking sites. The report outlined a series of measures, including stricter chemical disclosure requirements, increased setbacks between drilling sites and homes, and more rigorous monitoring of air and water quality. Despite these recommendations, Shapiro’s current strategy has failed to fully address the health and environmental risks that fracking poses.

Shannon Smith, executive director of FracTracker Alliance, has been particularly vocal about Shapiro’s stance. “He’s completely ignoring residents near these CNX sites,” Smith stated in September 2024, pointing out that those living closest to fracking operations are often the most vulnerable to its harmful effects. “He knows damn well what the health risks and the impacts are,” she added, referencing earlier comparisons of Shapiro’s abrupt shift in stance on the powerful fracking industry to a Jekyll-and-Hyde transformation.

However, despite mounting evidence of fracking’s limited benefits and significant risks, political leaders continue to perpetuate these myths, often because they fear losing the support of voters who have been promised prosperity. This reluctance to challenge misinformation fosters a dangerous environment where scientific evidence is downplayed, if not ignored entirely. It also allows disinformation campaigns, often backed by industry stakeholders, to take hold, misleading the public about the true risks and benefits of fracking. In this political climate, elected officials are complicit in spreading narratives that emphasize short-term profits at the expense of long-term harm, all for the sake of political expediency.

Common Misconceptions

One of the most persistent myths about fracking is that it delivers significant and lasting economic benefits. This misconception is particularly strong in states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia, where the oil and gas industry is seen as a key economic driver. However, closer inspection reveals inflated job numbers and exaggerated claims about economic prosperity.

Inflated Job Numbers

In 2012, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce falsely claimed that shale gas production created over 300,000 jobs across Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia based on inflated projections from industry-funded research, which focused on “projected jobs” rather than actual jobs created. The figure was later revised to 18,000 jobs “supported,” a significant reduction from the original claim. In truth, the number of shale-related jobs make up less than one percent of the total workforce in the entire Appalachian region, with oil and gas jobs comprising only 1.44 percent of the total workforce in Pennsylvania as of 2021.

The Resource Curse

Resource extraction, including fracking, has rarely led to sustained prosperity. Economists refer to the “resource curse” to describe how areas rich in natural resources often see poorer economic outcomes compared to regions with fewer resources. Shale gas development frequently follows this pattern. In many cases, the boom-and-bust cycle of the fracking industry leaves communities more economically unstable than before. Companies move in, exaggerate expectations of wealth and job creation, only to cut operations or close entirely when profitability wanes. The initial rush of economic activity obscures long-term realities: declining well productivity, diminishing returns on energy production, and increased environmental risks all contribute to the industry’s unsustainable future.

Fracking permanently contaminates water. Photo by Pat Sullivan/AP

Key Issues and Concerns

Hydraulic fracturing presents well-documented risks to both public health and the environment. As these long-term dangers become clearer, public concern is rising, prompting calls for stronger regulation and a reassessment of the industry’s practices.

Fracking is Poisonous

While natural gas companies like CNX argue that fracking operations pose no public health risks, a growing body of independent research contradicts these claims. Harmful pollutants released during the fracking process—including volatile organic compounds (VOCs) like benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene—can have serious health consequences. 

Prolonged exposure to these chemicals can cause a range of health problems, including respiratory illnesses like asthma and other lung conditions. These effects are particularly pronounced in vulnerable populations such as children, the elderly, and individuals with pre-existing health conditions. In addition to respiratory issues, benzene exposure is associated with an increased risk of leukemia and other blood disorders. Long-term exposure to fracking pollutants has also been linked to neurological problems, headaches, dizziness, and damage to the liver and kidneys. The proximity of homes, schools, and hospitals to fracking sites exacerbates these risks, with studies showing that people living within a few miles of fracking operations face significantly higher rates of health complications.

Dr. Ned Ketyer, president of Physicians for Social Responsibility Pennsylvania, warns that many industry-sponsored studies on fracking’s safety omit key long-term data and fail to account for the full range of pollutants released during operations. “They can’t conclude that fracking is safe,” Ketyer states, stressing the importance of unbiased research that accurately reflects the cumulative and long-term effects of fracking on public health. He and other health experts advocate for comprehensive, peer-reviewed studies to properly assess the risks, which they argue are being downplayed by the industry.

Counties in Pennsylvania where studies have shown increased asthma and respiratory symptoms related to living in close proximity to fracking infrastructure. Map by Katie Jones, FracTracker Alliance, 2024

See more →

Fracking Pollutes the Environment

Fracking also has significant environmental consequences, which often extend well beyond its immediate vicinity. From depleting freshwater resources to triggering earthquakes, worsening air quality, and exacerbating climate change, the practice has far-reaching effects that challenge its status as a sustainable energy solution.

Conclusion

Fracking is a pivotal issue in the 2024 presidential election, especially in key swing states like Pennsylvania. Voters should be concerned about fracking as they make their decisions in November. The choice between short-term gains and long-term sustainability will shape the future of not only key battleground states like Pennsylvania but the entire country as well. As you prepare to cast your vote, take the time to educate yourself about the candidates’ positions on fracking and environmental policy. Share credible information with others and encourage your community to do the same.

However, voting is only part of the democratic process. We must also hold elected officials accountable for their actions—or inaction—on critical issues like fracking to ensure that political convenience doesn’t overshadow the well-being of the people or the planet.