Allow me to quote from The Road Not Taken by Robert Frost: "Two roads diverged in a wood, and I – I took the one less travelled by, and that has made all the difference".

While Frost surely never intended his poem to apply to Europe’s energy woes, his words do sum up the critical choices that Bulgaria faces in the next decade: do we continue with business-as-usual, using ever-improving technologies to mine more and drill deeper for fossil fuels that were until recently not recoverable, thereby contributing to climate change? Or do we decide today to turn away from the risky exploration of fossil fuels and definitively embrace a low-carbon future, based on renewable energy and improved energy efficiency?

Food and Water Europe advocates for the latter option because shale gas should not be part of – and would actually be counter-productive to – Bulgaria’s transition to a low-carbon energy mix. Let’s first of all tackle the energy industry’s claim that shale gas is a ‘green’ fossil fuel that can help in the fight against climate change compared to other fuels like coal.

This oft-repeated claim is incorrect. The fact is that while shale gas may burn more cleanly than coal, the extraction process is dirtier. Recent scientific studies from Cornell University and the US National Center for Atmospheric Research demonstrate that methane emissions from the extraction of shale gas are likely to accelerate climate change in the coming decades. Methane is a greenhouse gas that is more than 20 times more powerful than CO2 in trapping heat in the atmosphere.

Apart from the climate concerns, the many other environmental and public health risks associated with the practice of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, to extract shale gas in the US should serve as a cautionary tale for Bulgaria. The examples that follow are not principled objections of environmentalists. They are rooted in scientific evidence as well as the experiences of local communities in the US, which demonstrate the immediate concerns for human and environmental health of fracking.

In December, the US Environmental Protection Agency revealed that fracking most likely explains widespread groundwater contamination in Pavilion, Wyoming. Overall, more than 1000 cases of water contamination have been reported near fracking sites in the US. In addition, many of the chemicals used in fracking fluid are toxic and some are carcinogenic. Scientists at the Endocrine Disruption Exchange found that 25 per cent of fracking fluids can cause cancer; 37 per cent can disrupt the endocrine system; and 40 to 50 per cent can affect the nervous, immune and cardiovascular systems.

Each shale gas well results in millions of litres of toxic wastewater and the inadequate treatment of this wastewater has contaminated American waterways. Accidents and spills have further endangered water resources. Beyond impacts on water, shale gas development increases heavy-duty truck traffic, noise pollution, and air pollution at the expense of local communities. Given these examples, it is not surprising that more than 100 state and local governments in the US have now passed resolutions to ban the dangerous practice of fracking.

France, Switzerland, some German states, South Africa and Quebec already imposed moratoriums on shale gas development until the impacts of fracking are better understood.

The objections against shale gas drilling are not only environmental; there are also strong economic arguments against fracking. While the energy industry claims that shale gas exploration will lead to job creation and local investment, most economic gains are short-lived. Construction and demand for housing may increase at first, but diminish quickly after the initial investment. Furthermore, industry-supplied figures about possible job creation linked to shale gas tend to grossly exaggerate the number of potential jobs in this sector.

Typically, these projections by energy companies also exclude the negative economic impact of drilling on other sectors. For example, scenic vistas are replaced with a landscape of gas wells, which lowers property values and harms tourism and recreation industries. The long-term economic damage and the significant erosion of communities’ quality of life needs are key arguments to ban shale gas exploration in Bulgaria.

Food & Water Europe aims to draw attention to the many environmental and public health risks associated with the practice of fracking, which should be the central focus of this debate on the wisdom of allowing shale gas exploration. Given the negative experiences in the US, Food and Water Europe encourages Bulgarian citizens and their elected representatives to choose ‘the road less travelled by’, and to advocate for aggressive investment in the deployment of existing energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies in order to deliver a sustainable energy future for Bulgaria.

Geert De Cock has a Ph.D in political science from the University of Alberta and is policy officer at Food and Water Watch – Food and Water Europe. This first appeared on capital.bg on January 14.