1AC

Plan
Plan: The United States federal government should ban the use of hydraulic fracturing
techniques in the United States
 Inherency
We need to ban fracking. Biden’s proposed policies to regulate it don’t go nearly far
enough.
Food & Water Watch 21. Washington, D.C.-based non-governmental organization group with an
office also in Los Angeles, California, which focuses on corporate and government accountability relating
to food, water, and corporate overreach. "Fracking, Federal Lands, And Follow-Through: Will President
Biden Do What He Promised?". 1-20-2021. https://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/2021/01/20/fracking-
federal-lands-and-follow-through-will-president-biden-do-what-he-promised/ accessed 7-19-2021

If we are going to have any chance of avoiding the worst of climate change, we need to ban fracking
and leave the vast majority of fossil fuels in the ground. Our new President Joe Biden has the ability to take an
important first step towards a livable future by halting the leasing for new oil and gas drilling on federal
lands, something he promised to do during the campaign. Biden should take this action on day one, but that action alone will not
be nearly enough. To avert climate chaos, Biden must embrace a vision of moving off fossil fuels
completely. Trump’s Greenlight To Frack Federal Lands Builds On What Obama and Biden Started Banning new development of
oil and gas on federal lands would be significant for the climate and the protection of some of our most treasured
historical sites and national parks. Between now and 2050, new drilling on federal lands could produce the
carbon equivalent of 1,000 coal fired power plants at a time when we need to be dramatically reducing
our carbon emissions. Further, oil and gas production on federal lands is increasingly threatening some of our most iconic national
parks and historic sites including Grand Teton, the Everglades, Rocky Mountain National Park, and Chaco Canyon. Leasing of federal
land for oil and gas development has increased under Trump. According to the Wilderness Society Action Fund and the
Guardian, his administration has leased 5.4 million acres of public land for oil and gas development — an area the size of New Jersey.
Coupled with his gutting of already too weak regulations of the production and transport of oil and gas,
Trump’s actions have recklessly increased emissions and pushed us even closer to climate chaos . But while
Trump’s actions have escalated oil and gas drilling on federal lands, they in some ways continued a trend started under the
Obama-Biden administration. The Obama-Biden “All Of The Above” Energy Strategy Cannot Continue Under Biden When Food &
Water Watch became the first national organization to call for a complete ban on fracking in 2011, we warned that rather than being a bridge
to a clean energy future, fracking was a “bridge to nowhere” that would sidestep “promising and genuinely
reliable alternative energy solutions.” At the time, many larger environmental organizations were touting fracked gas as a bridge
to a clean energy future and this bridge argument was embraced by Democratic Party leadership. Expanded oil and gas production
became a pillar in the Obama-Biden “all of the above energy strategy,” and in 2012, Obama-Biden
campaigned for re-election, touting increased domestic oil and gas production. In response, Food & Water Watch
joined with other groups to form a coalition — Americans Against Fracking — aimed at pushing back against expanded fracking. Stopping the
leasing of federal lands was a cornerstone of this coalition effort. We submitted over 650,000 comments calling for a ban on fracking on federal
lands to the Obama-Biden administration and worked with progressive leaders in Congress to introduce legislation to protect our federal lands
and keep fossil fuels in the ground. Still, while the consensus in the environmental community was shifting to recognize that fracking and a
livable climate are incompatible, the administration continued to approve new leases and more fracking. In Obama-Biden’s second term, the
Department of the Interior approved leases for fossil fuel extraction of nearly 5 million acres, just a bit less than approved by the Trump
Administration. Stopping New Fracking Leases On Public Lands Isn’t Close To Enough Biden’s embrace during the 2020 campaign for a halt to
leasing federal land for oil and gas development is welcome and represents a significant shift in policy. His Interior Secretary appointment of
Rep. Deb Haaland, a Native American congressperson who protested the Dakota Access Pipeline at Standing Rock and supports a ban on
fracking, is a welcome change from the industry-friendly appointees who served under Obama-Biden. But
merely stopping new
leases on federal lands will not be enough. After all, over 10 million acres of land were leased under Trump
and the last term of Obama-Biden alone, making our efforts to move off fossil fuels all the more
difficult. What it will take is a bold vision and leadership to move the country completely off fossil fuels. This
means stopping new leasing of federal lands , but it also means reversing the damage that has been done
in the last decade since we first raised the call for a national ban on fracking. This means advancing an agenda
that stops all new fossil fuel power plants, pipelines, and other infrastructure, banning fracking nationally either through
regulation or legislation, halting the buildout of fossil fuel export facilities and petrochemical hubs that are turning fracking
byproducts into plastics, and initiating a fair and just transition that starts shutting down existing fossil fuel
plants as we build out our renewable energy infrastructure.

Fracking permits are being issued at an unprecedented rate & constraints on permits
don’t solve anything
NPR 7/13 - National Public Radio, “Biden Promised To End New Drilling On Federal Land, But
Approvals Are Up,” 13 July 2021, https://www.npr.org/2021/07/13/1015581092/biden-promised-to-
end-new-drilling-on-federal-land-but-approvals-are-up

BILLINGS, Mont. — Approvals for companies to drill for oil and gas on U.S. public lands are on pace this year to
reach their highest level since George W. Bush was president, underscoring President Joe Biden's
reluctance to more forcefully curb petroleum production in the face of industry and Republican resistance. The Interior
Department approved about 2,500 permits to drill on public and tribal lands in the first six months of
the year, according to an Associated Press analysis of government data. That includes more than 2,100 drilling approvals
since Biden took office January 20. New Mexico and Wyoming had the largest number of approvals. Montana, Colorado and Utah had
hundreds each. Biden campaigned last year on pledges to end new drilling on federal lands to rein in climate-changing emissions. His pick to
oversee those lands, Interior Secretary Deb Haaland, adamantly opposed drilling on federal lands while in Congress and co-sponsored the
liberal Green New Deal. But the steps taken by the administration to date on fossil fuels are more modest, including a
temporary suspension on new oil and gas leases on federal lands that a judge blocked last month, blocked petroleum sales in the
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) and cancellation of the Keystone XL oil pipeline from Canada. Because vast fossil fuel
reserves already are under lease, those actions did nothing to slow drilling on public lands and waters
that account for about a quarter of U.S. oil production. Further complicating Biden's climate agenda is a recent rise in gasoline prices to $3 a
gallon ($0.79 a liter) or more in many parts of the country. Any attempt to limit petroleum production could push gasoline prices even higher
and risk souring economic recovery from the pandemic. "He's walking the tightrope," said energy industry analyst Parker Fawcett with S&P
Global Platts, noting that Keystone and ANWR came without huge political costs because they were aimed at future projects. "Those easy wins
don't necessarily have huge impacts on the market today," Fawcett said. "He is definitely backing
off taking drastic action that
would rock the market. ... What you're going to see is U.S. oil production is going to continue to rebound." Haaland has
sought to tamp down Republican concern over potential constraints on the industry. She said during a House Natural Resources Committee
hearing last month that there was no "plan right now for a permanent ban." "Gas and oil production will continue well into the future and we
believe that is the reality of our economy and the world we're living in," Haaland told Colorado Republican Rep. Doug Lamborn. Interior officials
declined further comment on permits issued under Biden. On a pace for 6,000 permits, the most since 2008 Under former President Donald
Trump, a staunch industry supporter, the Interior Department reduced the time it takes to review drilling applications
from a year or more in some cases, to just a few months. Companies rushed to lock in drilling rights before the new
administration. And in December, Trump's last full month in office, agency officials approved more than 800
permits — far more than any prior month during his presidency. The pace dropped when Biden first took office, under a temporary order
that elevated permit reviews to senior administration officials. Approvals have since rebounded to a level that exceeds
monthly numbers seen through most of Trump's presidency. The data obtained by AP from a government database is
subject to change because of delays in transmitting data from Interior field offices to headquarters. If the recent trends continue,
the Interior Department could issue close to 6,000 permits by the end of the year. The last time so many were issued
was fiscal year 2008, amid an oil boom driven by crude prices that reached an all-time high of $140 per barrel that June. Decisions on about
4,700 drilling applications remained pending as of June 1, which means approvals
are likely to continue at a heavy pace as
officials work through a backlog left over from the Trump administration , said Fawcett, the industry analyst. A
campaign promise derailed by pragmatism Environmentalists who share the administration's goals on climate have expressed growing
frustration as prospects for a ban on drilling fade. They contend the administration could take executive action that would stop further permits
but has caved to Republican pressure. "Every indication is they have no plans of actually fulfilling their campaign promise," said Mitch Jones,
policy director for the environmental group Food & Water Watch. "The result of that will be continued and increasing development of fossil
fuels on public lands, which means more climate change." Economists and other experts have been skeptical about how
much impact a permit ban would have. Companies simply could shift onto private and state lands and
keep drilling, said University of Chicago deputy dean Ryan Kellogg. The administration's defenders say it's being pragmatic in the face of a
Senate split 50-50 between Democrats and Republicans and questions over whether the government could legally stop drilling on leases
already sold to companies. That's meant forgoing a drilling ban in hopes of getting bipartisan support for a huge
infrastructure package that includes clean energy incentives and other measures to address global warming. "It's the long game. ... You've
got to appease some of those oil and gas state senators," said Jim Lyons, who was deputy assistant Interior secretary under Barack Obama and
is now an environmental consultant. "It means jobs back home for thousands of workers. You can't just pull the plug overnight."
 Solvency
Banning fracking is key to cutting emissions and reducing air and water contamination
that threaten ecosystems and public health.
Yessenia Funes 20. Climate editor at Atmos magazine. "The US Still Needs to Ban Fracking". Atmos. 11-
18-2020. https://atmos.earth/ban-fracking-biden-organizers-the-frontline/ accessed 7-19-2021

States like New York, Maryland, and Vermont have already banned fracking. Their reasonings were simple: This process
threatens waterways, ecosystems, and people’s health. Plus, it simply cannot exist in a world where
we’re serious about reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Many of these states do, however, still import
oil and gas extracted by fracking. As long as the process remains legal at a national level, frack-friendly
states will keep the practice alive—and there will be demand. Transitioning off oil and gas drilling in all forms is paramount to
making the U.S. a clean energy powerhouse in time to avoid further climate catastrophe . “Biden said he didn’t want to ban fracking, but

we know that he has to.” Putting an end to fracking is also central to preventing the deaths of nearby
community members—who are all too often Black and brown. Research has shown that exposure to air pollutants
released during this process may cause lower birth weights in newborns, as well as increased asthma attacks. These
operations can also bring in an outside workforce that’s largely male, which has been linked to a rise in local crime and violence. Indigenous groups have been
campaigning around this assault on their land. Fracking is not the future. “Biden said he didn’t want to ban fracking, but we know that he has to,” says Thomas
Meyer, an organizing manager at Food and Water Watch, which has been organizing around a fracking ban for about a decade. “If you’re serious about confronting
the climate crisis, you gotta take on fracking and the fossil fuel industry.” Fracking
produces methane, a greenhouse gas that can
slip out in leaks and flares. A 2018 study in Science, which I covered, found that the industry was producing 13 million
metric tons of methane every year—60 percent higher than previous estimates from the E nvironmental
Protection Agency. Methane is especially destructive because it carries a higher warming potential than its
infamous partner carbon dioxide. The New York Times photographed what these methane leaks can look like at oil and gas facilities. The result
is breathtakingly disgusting. As the Times points out, President Donald Trump has been trying to repeal methane regulations, which would make the fracking
process that much more dangerous. Biden, on the other hand, has promised to enact more stringent methane regulations, but that doesn’t include banning fracking
outright. Organizers aren’t giving up just because Biden isn’t immediately about it. If Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez were bold enough to
introduce the first-ever bill to ban fracking under Trump, advocates are going to push for a hell of a lot more under Biden. Already, Food and Water Watch is
We urge
circulating a letter to elected officials across the U.S. asking folks to sign on in support of a nationwide fracking ban by 2025. The letter text reads:

the President and Members of Congress to take the following actions: -Stop new permits for fracking on
federal lands, as well as federal permits for fracking or fracking infrastructure to extract, refine,
transport, or burn natural gas or oil. -End federal subsidies for the fracking industry and other fossil fuel
companies. -Revoke permits for current oil & gas wells within 2,500 ft of homes, schools, or other
inhabited structures. -Work with Indigenous Peoples, workers, unions, and frontline community
organizations to immediately invest in a just transition and comprehensive economic plan for communities and
workers impacted by the fracking industry. -Ban the practice of fracking nationwide, effective no later
than 2025. Until grassroots organizers can secure all of this, they’ll continue to lay on the pressure at the local level, too. In Colorado, groups are exploring
legal options to create local fracking bans. In Pennsylvania, the focus is on zoning ordinances to stop drilling in certain parts of the state. In California, the work has
involved electing officials at the city and county level who will promise to better regulate and eventually phase out this dangerous practice. Those
on the
frontlines of oil and gas—be it local communities or workers —deserve a nationwide fracking ban that
centers health, safety, and justice. The current economic crisis has already rocked the industry, but laying off workers and
abandoning wells isn’t the solution the people deserve . They deserve a just transition that will usher in a new era of clean air, clean
energy, and damn good jobs. The economy might repair itself, but the same may not be true for the planet.
Ignore fracking good arguments – there is scientific consensus it is bad, a ban is key
Angiola ’16 - (Dr. Gina M. Angiola – Board member for Chesapeake Physicians for Social
Responsibility, “Banning fracking is the only rational option,” 28 June 2016,
https://www.baltimoresun.com/opinion/op-ed/bs-ed-fracking-md-20160628-story.html)

Unconventional gas development using high-volume hydraulic fracturing, commonly referred to as fracking, has been
intensely debated in our state for almost a decade. Initially promoted as a "clean" fuel that would provide cheap energy, create jobs
and help the climate, fracked gas was embraced by politicians of both major parties. States like Pennsylvania and West Virginia welcomed the
industry with open arms, setting in motion a vast public health experiment. Maryland wisely waited. When Maryland began studying fracking in
2011, research on impacts was in its infancy. Yet by
the end of 2015, there were almost seven hundred peer-
reviewed articles on fracking impacts on air, water, seismicity, climate and human and animal health.
The emerging picture is clear: Fracking has no place in Maryland. Fracking is bad for our climate. Fracked gas is largely
methane, a greenhouse gas 86-times more potent than carbon dioxide over a 20-year time frame. These next 20 years will be critical for
stabilizing the climate. Methane leakage from gas development, production, distribution and well abandonment is much higher
than previously understood, making fracked gas as bad or worse than coal or oil for climate impacts.
Climate disruption is a public health emergency.It threatens not only the nature, distribution, and intensity of disease, but also food supplies,
national security, the economy and the foundations of civil society. Climate change cost estimates are in the trillions of dollars. And climate
disruption is accelerating rapidly. Permitting fracking now is immoral. Fracking harms human health. While the research on health effects is still
in its early stages (as would be expected due to time delays between exposure and development of illness ),
84 percent of existing
public health studies show risks or actual harms. In 2015, separate studies looking at health outcomes in
Pennsylvania showed a significant association between proximity to fracking operations and premature births,
and increased hospitalization rates for cardiac and neurological illnesses in heavily fracked counties. In May of this
year, in Dimock, Pa. — ground zero for fracking — the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry confirmed
that private well water had indeed been contaminated with a range of compounds that threaten health and safety. This
month, researchers in Wyoming documented the presence of specific carcinogenic, neurotoxic, and
endocrine-disrupting chemicals both in local air emissions and in the urine of residents living near oil and gas
operations. Rather than address legitimate concerns , for years industry has tried to deny, distort and
discredit claims of harm, or to buy the silence of those affected. The health harms we know about are
likely the tip of the iceberg, but they are sufficient to justify a fracking ban . Fracking destroys our
environment. Building fracking infrastructure damages forests and soils, weakening the very ecological systems that stabilize
the climate and purify air and water. Fracking also threatens farm lands and the health of our food supply. To frack a single well
requires millions of gallons of water, sand and toxic chemicals. Well leakage, spills and intentional discharges can
irreversibly damage ecosystems. In North Dakota, over 3,000 fracking wastewater spills — roughly one for every three wells drilled
— have led to widespread contamination of water and soil with salts, metals and radioactive compounds. Many bioaccumulate and persist for
decades. Water is removed from normal hydrologic cycles, a dangerous practice in times of worsening global droughts. Wastewaters injected
deep underground for long-term storage are causing unprecedented earthquakes in Oklahoma and elsewhere. In Canada, earthquakes are
being linked to the hydraulic fracturing process itself. If we value our environment, a ban is the only rational option. In 2015, rather
than pass an eight-year moratorium with a scientific review in year seven, the Maryland General Assembly chose to pass a two-year
moratorium with an automatic path to "regulated" fracking in 2017. This was unfortunate, as no
regulations can adequately
protect public health or the environment. This must be corrected with a ban in the next legislative session before fracking
begins. It's time to stop wasting taxpayer money and everyone's time developing and implementing impotent regulations for an outdated and
destructive fuel source. Instead, all resources should be redirected to a real jobs program to enhance our economy and quality of life, while
protecting our climate by moving rapidly to a 100 percent renewable energy-based economy, and restoring ecosystems and transforming land-
use practices to allow biological systems to put atmospheric carbon back into soils where it's needed Maryland is a beautiful state. Let's keep it
that way. No fracking allowed.
 Advantage 1 – Pollution
Fracking devastates public health. Unavoidable air and water pollution at every step
of the process means that only an outright ban can solve.
Edward C. Ketyer 21. Pediatrician and president-elect of Physicians for Social Responsibility
Pennsylvania, "Biden’s executive order on oil and gas drilling does little to protect health in PA." The
Philadelphia Inquirer. https://www.inquirer. 2-2-2021.
https://www.inquirer.com/opinion/commentary/biden-executive-orders-climate-change-oil-gas-drilling-
pennsylvania-20210202.html accessed 7-19-2021

2. Fracking makes Pennsylvanians sick. Research in Pennsylvania now links

fracking to several cradle-to-grave health
conditions, including impaired infant development and health, asthma, heart problems, skin rashes,
mental health problems, and possibly cancer. Between 2008 and 2018, a spike of rare childhood cancers, including Ewing
sarcoma, was observed in four heavily fracked counties in southwestern Pennsylvania. Parents and physicians are very concerned that
pollution and toxic, radioactive waste from fracking may be to blame for this outbreak. 3. Fracking scars the
landscape, degrades the environment, and threatens our air, water, and soil. Article 1 Section 27 of the Pennsylvania Constitution grants
citizens “the right to clean air, pure water, and to the preservation of the natural, scenic, historic, and esthetic values of the environment,” not
just for all of us here today, but “for generations yet to come.” Air
pollution comes off every point of fracking
infrastructure — diesel trucks, well pads, pipelines, compressor stations, processing facilities, LNG
terminals, petrochemical factories, and power plants. Contamination of private drinking water sources
are well-documented in our state. Last year after a two-year investigation, a grand jury charged two fracking companies with illegally
polluting surface and groundwater in Pennsylvania, making water unsafe to drink and threatening public health. 4. Fracking has an
unsolvable toxic and radioactive waste problem. Solid waste and wastewater that flows back after a
well is drilled and fracked are contaminated with toxic fracking chemicals, salty brine, heavy metals,
and radioactivity. Dumping the solid waste in landfills and injecting the wastewater in deep-underground
injection wells contaminates streams and aquifers, and triggers earthquakes. Water treatment
technology cannot decontaminate frack wastewater and make it drinkable. 5. Fracking is financially unsustainable.
The COVID-19 pandemic, concerns about climate change, plummeting prices for renewable energy solutions, and negative public opinion about
fracking (including 52% of Pennsylvanians who opposed it in one poll) have all driven down demand for oil and gas and investment in a fracking
industry that has never been profitable. An analysis by Deloitte last year exploring this “great compression” showed that the fracking industry
lost $300 billion over the preceding 15 years, and suffered more than 190 bankruptcies since 2010. 6. Fracking accelerates climate change.
Fracked gas does not reduce the risk of climate change compared to coal. Huge quantities of methane leak from infrastructure and are
intentionally vented into the atmosphere during fracking operations. Methane is 86 times more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide
over a 20-year time frame. Research has found fugitive methane emissions from oil and gas sites to be at least 60% higher than EPA estimates,
placing the goals of the Paris Climate Agreement further out of reach. Trying to have it both ways — allowing fracking to continue while
attempting to solve climate change — denies the scope, severity, and urgency of the crisis. Rather than wait on slow federal actions,
Pennsylvania must leave fracking behind by ending it immediately and moving on to a cleaner, healthier,
sustainable future.

It is slow violence in affected communities. Merely living near wells cuts three years
off life expectancies.
Rebecca Kling 21. Writer for the Sierra Club. "Fracking: Good for Fossil Fuel Companies, Bad for Public
Health". Sierra Club. 4-21-2021. https://www.sierraclub.org/oklahoma/blog/2021/04/fracking-good-for-
fossil-fuel-companies-bad-for-public-health accessed 7-21-2021

The Oklahoma landscape is

dotted by tens of thousands of oil and gas wells, and a new study shows that living
close to them comes with a clear set of health risks. Many of these oil and gas wells are considered “conventional,” which
is what most people think of when they imagine drilling for oil or gas: There’s a large reservoir of fossil fuel somewhere underground, and
companies stick a giant straw into the ground to slurp it up. While burning fossil fuels is always harmful to public health and to the
environment, ‘conventional’ drilling has been happening for more than a century and comes with a known and understood set of risks,
including leaks and spills, pollution from the drilling itself, disruption to local wildlife, and more. Hydraulic fracturing, more commonly called
“fracking,” is a newer way to drill for fossil fuels. Fracking attempts to get fossil fuels out of harder to reach places underground by injecting
water, sand, and a mix of chemicals into the ground to fracture (break up) the rock and push out the fossil fuels. Not surprisingly, this comes
with its own long list of health and environmental concerns : Where does fracking wastewater go? Does
fracturing all this rock lead to earthquakes? And is it safe to live near fracking sites? A recent study gave some important answers
to that last question: No, it’s not safe to live near fracking sites , and adding more fracking wells has a direct
negative impact on public health. That’s according to An analysis of the impact of unconventional oil and gas activities on public
health: New evidence across Oklahoma counties, which was released in March, 2021. (The phrase “unconventional oil and gas activities” in the
title is a fancy way of saying “fracking.”) The study examined 76 of Oklahoma’s 77 counties, looking at data from 1998–2017 .
Researchers
found that more fracking sites meant higher death rates, more cancer, more cardiac arrests, more
respiratory diseases, and lower life expectancies. Specifically: “On average, 1% increase in the number of
fracking wells led to a 4.2% reduction in life expectancy. Similar trends were observed for the remaining
health indicators, where a 1% increase in the number of fracking wells led to a 6.8% increase in mortality
rate, a 7.9% increase in cancer diseases, a 7.3% increase in cardiac diseases, and a 5.9% increase in
respiratory diseases.” To put that in perspective, the CDC says life expectancy in the United States is 78.7 years .
A 4.2% reduction in life expectancy, then, means taking more than three years off of someone’s life! This is
on top of the many factors that give parts of Oklahoma the lowest life expectancy in the United States. What this study found about fracking
and public health lines up with what other researchers have found, including a 2019 study that looked at Oklahoma births to
show living closer to fracking wells had a negative impact on infants’ birth health , a 2016 EPA report that
found fracking could harm drinking water, and a 2019 analysis from Oxford University Press that
concluded fracking “not only continues to contribute to climate change but also has local and regional direct health
impacts.” All this paints a pretty clear picture that fracking is not only bad for the environment, but also bad for
public health. This clearly affects Oklahoma, with our tens of thousands of oil and gas wells, but also poses a nationwide threat and raises
questions of whether local, state, or federal policies can eliminate the health risks from fracking. Ultimately, however, the safest
approach is to ditch fracking altogether, and move to 100% clean and renewable energ y. Renewable energy is
safer, cleaner, less expensive, and without the health and environmental risks of drilling for fossil fuels.

Those impacts are disparate, impacting people according to race and class divisions.
Kara Harris 20. "A Texas Town Takes on Fracking as a Racial Justice Issue". Bloomberg. 8-28-2020.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-08-28/racial-justice-concerns-spur-new-fracking-
scrutiny accessed 7-21-2021

With racial justice now prominently elevated to the top of Arlington’s agenda , it didn’t take long to test
the resolutions’ political gravity. Just after the city council adopted them, what would normally be a standard fracking
approval vote turned into a forum for residents’ concerns about the environmental and health risks of
gas extraction near Black and Latino neighborhoods. “Everybody that we talked to was opposed [to
fracking] and the main concern was air pollution, exposure to emissions, and what it would mean for
their children’s health,” said Ranjana Bhandari, who disseminated information about several new proposed wells through local
nonprofit Livable Arlington. The pushback prompted city council members to reject the request to expand a drilling sitewith three new wells, in
a move that could pit local lawmakers not just against French oil and gas drilling company Total, but also potentially against a state law that
bars some local regulation of fracking. It’s unclear whether the permit rejection will be challenged under this law. But the council members’
action shows how proactive measures to elevate racial justice can affect outcomes in local decisions . “As more
and more cities, counties and health departments examine health disparities and look at the link between
environment and health, they will start to make those connections in terms of racial justice and racial
equity and health outcomes,” said Robert Bullard, an urban planning and environmental policy professor at Texas Southern
University often called the “father of environmental justice.” The vote also comes at a time when oil and gas operations are being permitted to
skirt environmental monitoring because of the coronavirus outbreak, according to an Associated Press investigation. Before the decision,
community members testified about the proposal’s impact on a neighborhood of predominantly Black and Hispanic working class families in
East Arlington, where communities have some of the highest rates of Covid-19 in the city. As in much of the U.S., data shows that residents of
color in the surrounding county of Tarrant have disproportionately high rates of Covid-19. Arlington, a midsize city of almost 400,000 people
situated between Dallas and Fort Worth, sits
atop the Barnett Shale, thought by some experts to have the largest
reserves of accessible onshore natural gas. The new wells would have been an expansion of a site that has existed since 2010.
Total representative Kevin Strawser said during the hearing that there had been “no violations, complaints, or issues” reported to the company
about the existing wells, and that it would use an electric drilling rig and install sound walls to avoid noise and pollution. But when asked by a
council member about plans to conduct air monitoring to gauge its impact, Strawser said it doesn’t do its own monitoring but would welcome
government monitoring on its site. “If there is a concern we will address it immediately,” said Strawser during the June 9 hearing when asked
about how the company plans to address environmental concerns. The
drill site, which is in a higher-density working-class
neighborhood, sits next to a daycare center, prompting concerns about nearby children’s health. “We
could probably throw our balls out to the fence,” said Wanda Vincent, owner of Mother’s Heart Christian Learning Center, remarking on the
single barrier that separates her business from the drill site. “ Some of our children do have asthma and sometimes we
see respiratory issues even in our baby class. They are just babies and already have problems in that area,” she said,
suggesting a potential link between fracking and these breathing issues. Formally known as hydraulic fracturing,
fracking is an alternative to standard oil and gas drilling. The process involves deep underground drilling used in combination with high water
pressure to break rock that draws out gas. Studies have associated fracking with health effects that can include
respiratory problems, birth defects and cancers just from air pollution. In some cases, fracking has also
been linked to groundwater contamination and even earthquakes. Fracking wells have landed far more
frequently near neighborhoods with high populations of people of color, likely due in part to what
Bullard calls the “path of least resistance” in fuel extraction companies choosing neighborhoods without
enough political power to oppose them. A 2017 NAACP study found that African Americans are 75% more likely
than the “average American” to live in fence-line communities — areas near industrial or service facilities
that are directly affected by the facility’s operation . These areas are subject to more problems with
noise, odor, traffic and chemical emissions. “ZIP Code is the best predictor of health and well-being in
this country. If you tell me your ZIP Code I can tell you how healthy you are,” said Bullard, who conducted much of his early research to
establish environmental exposure disparities in Texas

Only a ban on fracking can solve air and water pollution and restore public health
Jake Johnson 19. Writer for Common Dreams, citing a report of scientific studies on the health
impacts of fracking. "Total Ban on Fracking Urged by Health Experts: 1,500 Studies Showed 'Damning'
Evidence of Threats to Public Health, Climate". EcoWatch. 6-20-2019.
https://www.ecowatch.com/fracking-ban-public-health-climate-2638928294.html accessed 7-19-2021

A comprehensive analysis of nearly 1,500 scientific studies , government reports, and media stories on
the consequences of fracking released Wednesday found that the evidence overwhelmingly shows the drilling
method poses a profound threat to public health and the climate. The sixth edition of the Compendium of Scientific,
Medical, and Media Findings Demonstrating Risks and Harms of Fracking (the Compendium), published by Physicians for Social Responsibility
and Concerned Health Professionals of New York, found that "90.3percent of all original research studies published from
2016-2018 on the health impacts of fracking found a positive association with harm or potential harm."
The analysis also found that: 69 percent of original research studies on water quality found potential for , or actual
evidence of, fracking-associated water contamination ; 87 percent of original research studies on air quality found
significant air pollutant emissions; and 84 percent of original research studies on human health risks found signs of harm
or indication of potential harm. "There is no evidence that fracking can operate without threatening public
health directly and without imperiling climate stability upon which public health depends ," the Compendium
states. Sandra Steingraber, Ph.D., co-founder of Concerned Health Professionals of New York, said in a statement that "the case against fracking
becomes more damning" with the publication of each edition of the Compendium. "As the science continues to come in, early inklings of harm
have converged into a wide river of corroborating evidence," said Steingraber. "All
together, the data show that fracking
impairs the health of people who live nearby, especially pregnant women, and swings a wrecking ball at
the climate. We urgently call on political leaders to act on the knowledge we've compiled." According to the Compendium, the first edition
of which was published in 2014, the "feverish pace" of U.S. fossil fuel extraction — which has accelerated under President
Donald Trump — "has spurred a massive build-out of fracking infrastructure ," putting air quality and water
sources at risk in communities across the United States. In addition to the harmful effects of fracking on those who live near oil
and gas development projects, the Compendium found, the drilling practice is "also at odds with the emerging scientific consensus on the scale
and tempo of necessary climate change mitigation and with rising public alarm about the impending climate crisis that this consensus has
amplified." "Despite
efforts by the gas industry to suppress all health data on fracking, the Compendium
documents the serious harm fracking holds for pregnant women, children, and those with respiratory
disease," Walter Tsou, MD, MPH, interim executive director of Philadelphia Physicians for Social
Responsibility, said in a statement. "We need to ban fracking." The sixth edition of the Compendium comes just days
after more than 100 environmental groups sent a letter urging Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf to investigate the link between fracking and the
emergence of rare childhood cancers in rural Pennsylvania counties. As Steingraber — one of the letter's signatories — told online
environmental outlet The Daily Climate on Wednesday, much of the data in the Compendium comes from Pennsylvania, which is home to over
100,000 active oil and gas wells. "What
makes fracking different from any other industry I've studied in public
health is that there's no industrial zone," Steingraber said. "It's taking place literally in our backyards, and
unfortunately some of the best evidence for both polluting emissions and emerging health crises is
coming out of southwestern Pennsylvania."
 Advantage 2 – Economy
Renewables are cheaper – Transition is occurring right now & some countries have
committed to net-zero carbon
Bhutada 7/21 - Govind Bhutada, 07-05-2021. “Electricity from Renewable Energy Sources is Now
Cheaper than Ever”. Visual Capitalist, https://www.visualcapitalist.com/electricity-from-renewable-
energy-sources-is-now-cheaper-than-ever/. (Govind graduated from the University of British Columbia
with a Bachelor of International Economics)

The Transition to Renewable Energy Sources Renewable energy sources are at the center of the transition to a
sustainable energy future and the fight against climate change. Historically, renewables were expensive
and lacked competitive pricing power relative to fossil fuels. However, this has changed notably over
the last decade. Renewables are the Cheapest Sources of New Electricity Fossil fuel sources still account for the
majority of global energy consumption, but renewables are not far off. The share of global electricity
from renewables grew from 18% in 2009 to nearly 28% in 2020. Renewable energy sources follow
learning curves or Wright’s Law—they become cheaper by a constant percentage for every doubling of
installed capacity. Therefore, the increasing adoption of clean energy has driven down the cost of
electricity from new renewable power plants. Solar PV and onshore wind power plants have seen the
most notable cost decreases over the last decade . Furthermore, the price of electricity from gas-
powered plants has declined mainly as a result of falling gas prices since their peak in 2008. By contrast,
the price of electricity from coal has stayed roughly the same with a 1% increase. Moreover, nuclear-
powered electricity has become 33% more expensive due to increased regulations and the lack of new
reactors. When will Renewable Energy Sources Take Over? Given the rate at which the cost of renewable energy is falling, it’s only a
matter of time before renewables become the primary source of our electricity. Several countries
have committed to achieving net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, and as a result, renewable energy is
projected to account for more than half of the world’s electricity generation by 2050.

But, the only way towards a full clean energy system means the plan
Food & Water Watch 21 - Food Water Watch. “A National Ban On Fracking Is Key”. Food Water
Watch, 03-06-2021. https://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/2021/03/06/a-national-ban-on-fracking-is-
key-2/. Washington, D.C.-based non-governmental organization group with an office also in Los Angeles,
California, which focuses on corporate and government accountability relating to food, water, and
corporate overreach.

The corporations that hype fracking — short for hydraulic fracturing, a method that uses high pressure water and chemical
cocktails to break up deep shale formations in order to extract gas — are trying to lock us into a dirty future powered by
fossil fuels. It’s a future that leads to more gas plants, more leaky pipelines, more compressor stations,
more processing plants, more dangerous storage facilities, and more public health crises. We know the
only way toward a clean, renewable energy future is to ban fracking and to stop all new fossil fuel
development. We need to ban fracking everywhere, but the first step is saving our public lands from the free-for-all fracking
permits that Trump ushered through.
Keeping fracking means heavy cost persist
Sharon Kelly 20, 1-25-2020, "After a Decade of Fracking, Billions of Dollars Lost and a Climate in Crisis,"
Truthout, https://truthout.org/articles/after-a-decade-of-fracking-billions-of-dollars-lost-and-a-climate-
in-crisis/ //mecr

As 2020 begins, the impacts of climate change have become increasingly clear around the world. The
new year started amid devastating wildfires, tied to the worst droughts Australia has experienced in hundreds of
years, which encircled much of the continent. So far, 29 people have been reported dead. A University of Sydney
professor estimated the number of animals killed likely tops one billion. Today’s climate impacts have
been shaped heavily by actions taken during the last 10 years, particularly in the U.S., where the climate
benefits of coal power plant retirements were undermined by the rise of natural gas. Global carbon emissions
had leveled off in the middle of the last decade, but began to climb again in 2017, breaking records anew each year
since. Over the past decade, as the climate crisis worsened, hundreds of drilling rigs dotted both the Permian
Basin’s desert expanses in Texas and the Marcellus Shale’s Appalachian hills, grinding through rock to reach oil and gas trapped in brittle shale
deep underground. In that time, the U.S. smashed global records for the production of oil and gas — two of the
three fossil fuels most responsible for the ongoing climate crisis. And at the same time, the last decade’s
rush to drill continued to prove spectacularly unprofitable. The year 2020 arrived amid tens of billions of dollars in new
fiscal write-downs and losses for oil drillers and fracking firms. Moody’s observed that oil and gas debt defaults represented 91
percent of the country’s total corporate debt defaults during the next-to-last fiscal quarter of the decade. As the new decade
starts, it’s worth taking stock of the last decade’s rush to drill and frack for oil and gas and to consider what we now know about how the costs
of climate change have begun piling up at increasing rates over the past 10 or so years. Crossing Into One-Degree Warming The past
decade was the warmest on record, according to two analyses by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) that were released on January 15. “These trends are the footprints of human
activity stomping on the atmosphere,” Gavin A. Schmidt, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, told The New York Times. “We
know that this has been driven by human activities.” In 2017, the world on average reached one full degree Celsius (1.8
degrees Fahrenheit) of human-induced warming above pre-industrial levels, NASA reports. And the 2010s saw previously unfamiliar
weather-related terms like “thundersnow,” “polar vortex,” and “bombogenesis” popularized, as well as a host of climate-linked firsts and
rarities. The U.S. experienced its first recorded full-blown EF-3 tornado made of — and by — wildfire during 2018’s Carr fire in California. While
so-called “fire whirls,” or narrow vortices, aren’t all that uncommon during wildfires, 2018’s unprecedented “firenado” was 1,000 feet wide and
tossed vehicles aloft, sent a steel shipping container flying a half-mile, and killed a Redding, California, firefighter. It was the decade when
scientists discovered huge mysterious craters opening in fields of Russian and Alaskan permafrost. Researchers soon linked the craters to both a
thawing Arctic and the release of methane and carbon previously locked in the frozen landscape. Amid the Arctic thaw, building foundations
sank while trees and cemetery gravestones began to tilt and lean as the world’s permafrost began shedding its
permanence. The 2010s brought evidence that even familiar principles of physics can operate in unfamiliar ways in a
climate-changed world. In Phoenix, Arizona, June temperatures climbed so high that commercial airplanes were grounded amid
concern that their wings could not generate the lift that makes manned flight possible. The decade also saw some of the most
catastrophic storms to ever strike along the Atlantic Coast, including four of the five most damaging hurricanes in U.S. history.
“For all United States hurricanes, Katrina (2005) is the costliest storm on record,” a 2018 National Hurricane Center analysis found, using
inflation-adjusted figures. “Hurricane Harvey (2017) ranks second, Hurricane Maria (2017) ranks third, Hurricane Sandy (2012) ranks fourth, and
Hurricane Irma (2017) ranks fifth.” As the decade ended, the deadly Hurricane Dorian — a storm so powerful some called for the Saffir-Simpson
Hurricane Wind Scale to be extended to describe it as a “Category 6” storm — stalled over Great Abaco and Grand Bahama island with horrific
consequences. Between 1980 and 2019, climate
and weather disasters wreaked billion-dollar damages 258 times in
the United States, causing over $1.75 trillion in damages , NOAA reported this month. And those events
are occurring more often. “2019 is the fifth consecutive year (2015-2019) in which 10 or more billion-
dollar weather and climate disaster events have impacted the United States,” the agency wrote. “Over the last 40
years (1980-2019), the years with 10 or more separate billion-dollar disaster events include 1998, 2008, 2011-2012, and 2015-2019.” Fourteen
million people were impacted by the Midwest’s “great flood of 2019,” as The New York Times put it in September last year. That flood besieged
those along the banks of the Mississippi for an even longer duration than the 1927 floods that led to laws giving the Army Corps of Engineers
flood control authority over the river. And the 2010s also brought a sharp increase in damages from smaller individual incidents, the insurance
industry reports, with insurers linking that growth to the emerging impacts of a changing climate. “The data show total insured losses from
natural catastrophes are up from less than $7 billion a year in the 1970s to between $29.3 billion and $143.4 billion a year from 2010 to 2018,”
Reuters reported in September 2019. “In 2018, 62 percent of all natural catastrophe insurance claims came from secondary perils” like hail
storms, flash floods, and wildfires, rather than “primary perils” like hurricanes and earthquakes. Drilling and Fracking Hundreds of Thousands of
New Oil and Gas Wells This was also the decade that brought documentary viewers the first images of tap water that could be lit on fire, as
Gasland, released in 2010, displayed footage from homes near gas drilling where water became so contaminated with methane and other
pollutants that, far from extinguishing fire, what flowed from the faucet could ignite into one. An
oil and gas drilling wave swept
across the U.S., even as the impacts of climate change were increasingly palpable and deadly. Much of
the drilling frenzy was unleashed by a combination of hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling that allowed oil
companies to wring fossil fuels from dense shale rock underlying huge swaths of the nation. That drilling rush not only brought
contaminated drinking water supplies, it also accelerated climate change. At the start of the decade,
scientists had warned of the hazards of shale gas in particular. In 2011, scientists Robert Howarth, Renee Santoro, and
Anthony Ingraffea published their landmark peer-reviewed study showing that methane leaks from the natural gas industry —
particularly from shale gas production — could be so severe that burning natural gas for power could
be worse than burning coal. In many cases, state and federal regulators nonetheless facilitated and encouraged the rush to drill.
“You wouldn’t always know it, but [American energy production] went up every year I was president,” former President Barak Obama, who
served from 2009 to 2017, said at an event in Houston in November last year. The past 10 years left the U.S. pockmarked with hundreds of
thousands of new oil and gas wells. During the decade spanning 2009 to 2019, oil and gas drillers received new
permits for roughly 430,000 wells nationwide, including new wells and so-called “workovers,” used to extend the life of a well,
according to data from WellDatabase.com reviewed by DeSmog. At least 42,000 of those wells were later listed as canceled or suspended and a
drilling date was unavailable for many other wells, leaving their status unclear. Drillers put drill bit to ground at roughly 245,000 new oil and gas
wells nationwide between January 1, 2009 and December 31, 2019, WellDatabase reports, meaning that the 2010s brought roughly a quarter
million or more new oil and gas wells to the U.S. landscape. Shale gas represented 16 percent of total U.S. gas production as the decade began.
By 2019, over 80 percent of U.S. gas came from shale wells, according to the Energy Information Administration. More than 113,000 new wells
targeting shale formations were drilled between 2009 and 2019 and produced oil or gas from two dozen shale regions, or “plays,” nationwide,
the Welldatabase.com data shows. Detailed information was unavailable for tens of thousands of additional wells drilled over the decade.
Drillers generated over 861 billion gallons of wastewater from those shale wells drilled during the past decade, the data shows. That’s roughly
enough to give every person living in the U.S. in 2009 their own 11-foot round swimming pool filled with wastewater four feet deep. And that’s
only a small slice of the oil and gas industry’s total production of toxic waste — add in the wastewater from older wells and new conventional
wells and nearly a trillion gallons a year of wastewater flows from the oil and gas industry , according to a new
Rolling Stone investigation, which highlights that the industry’s “brine” is not only often toxic and laden with corrosive salts but can also be
radioactive. And climate-warming methane pollution linked to all that oil and gas production soared. In a 2019
study, the researcher Robert Howarth found that methane concentrations in the Earth’s atmosphere since 2008 were “rapidly rising.” “ This
recent increase in methane is massive ,” Howarth said in a statement accompanying his research. “It’s globally significant. It’s
contributed to some of the increase in global warming we’ve seen and shale gas is a major player.” A
‘Lost Decade’ for Profits From Fossil Fuels This past decade also brought unprecedented upheaval in the economics of energy. Coal — the fossil
fuel at the foundation of the industrial revolution, long regarded as dirty but cheap — was out-competed by natural gas throughout the 2010s.
In 2011, the country’s capacity to generate power from coal peaked at nearly 318 gigawatts — and then rapidly tumbled to 257 gigawatts in
2017, according to the Energy Information Administration. Natural gas largely displaced coal. “The
United States surpassed Russia
in 2011 to become the world’s largest producer of natural gas and surpassed Saudi Arabia in 2018 to
become the world’s largest producer of petroleum ,” the Energy Information Administration reported in 2019. “Last year’s
increase in the United States was one of the largest absolute petroleum and natural gas production increases from a single country in history.”
But even as drillers churned out extraordinary amounts of natural gas, driving prices to historic lows,
they never figured out how to make that drilling profitable. As DeSmog has documented, shale drillers started the
decade making spectacular promises to investors — but failed on the delivery. Shale gas would be so cheap companies could make money even
if gas prices plunged, analysts predicted, and others forecast that shale oil could be produced for as little as $5 a barrel. Instead,
companies racked up huge debts and massive write-downs even as production soared. A seeming paradox
emerged, where debt-fueled energy companies churned out ever-growing amounts of oil and gas, but failed entirely at making their backers
rich in the process, resulting in what some called the industry’s “lost decade.” “The 2010s was a lost decade for shares of U.S. energy
companies overall,” Reuters reported in December. “Volatile commodity prices amid growing supply, poor financial performance, and disfavor
from some investor groups all contributed to the energy sector’s transformation from investor darling to investor outcast.” In 2011, The New
York Times highlighted warning signs inside the oil and gas sector that the economics of shale were unworkable. “‘Money is pouring in’ from
investors even though shale gas is ‘inherently unprofitable,’ an analyst from PNC Wealth Management, an investment company, wrote to a
contractor in a February [2011] email. ‘Reminds you of dot-coms,’” a front-page New York Times article reported. The end of the decade saw
EQT, the nation’s largest natural gas producer, announce that their assets were worth $1.8 billion less than previously described. That was the
result, the company said, of low gas prices and “changes to our development strategy.” Oil giant Chevron wrote down $11 billion in assets in
December and fracking giant Schlumberger reported a $10 billion loss for 2019. Over
the same time, renewable energy began
to become cost competitive — even against natural gas’s historic low prices. That’s a shift that could
have extraordinary implications for the coming years, as the most polluting energy sources are no
longer also the cheapest. In January, the Energy Information Administration reported that more than three quarters of the
power capacity that companies plan to add in the U.S. this coming year will overwhelmingly come from
wind and solar power. Those wind and solar projects will add over three times as much new capacity as is expected from natural gas
additions. Over 70 percent of those natural gas plants are planned in the gas-producing states of Pennsylvania, Texas, California, and Louisiana,
the Energy Information Administration added. “The analysis presents compelling evidence that 2019 represents a tipping point,” the Rocky
Mountain Institute concluded in reports released last September, “with the economics now favoring clean energy over
nearly all new U.S. gas-fired generation.” Shale investors aren’t the only ones who see the 2010s as a “lost decade.” Public policy debates over
the past several decades were often consumed with well-funded efforts to confuse the public on climate change and to question the reliability
of climate science — but now we know that even models from the 1970s proved to be astoundingly accurate, Scientific American reported in
December. The failure to look at climate change head on was acknowledged by Florida’s Republican officials in remarks that made national
news last October, coming from a state where a 2015 Miami Herald investigation found state officials had been forbidden to use the term
“climate change.” “We lost a decade,” Republican state senator Tom Lee said at a hearing examining sea-level rise and other impacts that a
warming climate will have on the low-lying state’s infrastructure. As
the 2020s begin, climate scientists and world experts
are warning that — if there ever had been — now, there’s no time to spare.

Renewables improve the economy

IRENA 20, intergovernmental organization mandated to facilitate cooperation, advance knowledge,
and promote the adoption and sustainable use of renewable energy, 6-2-2020, "Renewables
Increasingly Beat Even Cheapest Coal Competitors on Cost," International Renewable Energy Agency,
https://www.irena.org/newsroom/pressreleases/2020/Jun/Renewables-Increasingly-Beat-Even-
Cheapest-Coal-Competitors-on-Cost //mecr

Renewable power is increasingly cheaper than any new electricity capacity based on fossil fuels, a new
report by the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) published today finds. Renewable Power
Generation Costs in 2019 shows that more than half of the renewable capacity added in 2019 achieved
lower power costs than the cheapest new coal plants. The report highlights that new renewable power
generation projects now increasingly undercut existing coal-fired plants . On average, new solar photovoltaic (PV) and
onshore wind power cost less than keeping many existing coal plants in operation, and auction results show this trend
accelerating – reinforcing the case to phase-out coal entirely. Next year, up to 1 200 gigawatts (GW) of existing coal capacity could cost
more to operate than the cost of new utility-scale solar PV, the report shows. Replacing the costliest 500 GW of coal with
solar PV and onshore wind next year would cut power system costs by up to USD 23 billion every year
and reduce annual emissions by around 1.8 gigatons (Gt) of carbon dioxide (CO2), equivalent to 5% of
total global CO2 emissions in 2019. It would also yield an investment stimulus of USD 940 billion, which
is equal to around 1% of global GDP. “We have reached an important turning point in the energy transition. The case for new
and much of the existing coal power generation, is both environmentally and economically unjustifiable ,” said
Francesco La Camera, Director-General of IRENA. “Renewable energy is increasingly the cheapest source of new
electricity, offering tremendous potential to stimulate the global economy and get people back to
work. Renewable investments are stable, cost-effective and attractive offering consistent and predictable returns
while delivering benefits to the wider economy. “A global recovery strategy must be a green strategy,” La Camera added. “ Renewables
offer a way to align short-term policy action with medium- and long-term energy and climate goals .
Renewables must be the backbone of national efforts to restart economies in the wake of the COVID-19 outbreak. With the right policies in
place, falling renewable power costs, can shift markets and contribute greatly towards a green recovery.” Renewable electricity costs have fallen
sharply over the past decade, driven by improving technologies, economies of scale, increasingly competitive supply chains and growing developer experience. Since
2010, utility-scale solar PV power has shown the sharpest cost decline at 82%, followed by concentrating solar power (CSP) at 47%, onshore wind at 39% and
offshore wind at 29%. Costs for solar and wind power technologies also continued to fall year-on-year. Electricity costs from utility-scale solar PV fell 13% in 2019,
reaching a global average of 6.8 cents (USD 0.068) per kilowatt-hour (kWh). Onshore and offshore wind both declined about 9%, reaching USD 0.053/kWh and USD
0.115/kWh, respectively. Recent auctions and power purchase agreements (PPAs) show the downward trend continuing for new projects are
commissioned in 2020 and beyond. Solar PV prices based on competitive procurement could average USD 0.039/kWh for projects
commissioned in 2021, down 42% compared to 2019 and more than one-fifth less than the cheapest fossil-fuel competitor
namely coal-fired plants. Record-low auction prices for solar PV in Abu Dhabi and Dubai (UAE), Chile, Ethiopia, Mexico, Peru and Saudi Arabia
confirm that values as low as USD 0.03/kWh are already possible. For the first time, IRENA’s annual report also looks at investment value in
relation to falling generation costs. The same amount of money invested in renewable power today produces more new capacity than it would
have a decade ago. In
2019, twice as much renewable power generation capacity was commissioned than in
2010 but required only 18% more investment.