hu.euronews.com
Greenpeace Protests Fracking in Hungary, Cites Benzol Contamination
Greenpeace activists protested fracking in Nyékpuszta, Hungary, placing a "Stop fracking" banner on a drilling rig and presenting evidence of benzol levels exceeding safety limits, prompting calls for a shift towards renewable energy.
- Why have several European countries banned or restricted fracking, and what are the main arguments used by both proponents and opponents of this technology?
- Fracking involves drilling deep into the earth, then horizontally, and injecting a fluid containing water, sand, acids, and biocides. While proponents claim these chemicals remain contained, Greenpeace's findings suggest otherwise, indicating benzol, a carcinogen, exceeding safety limits. Several European countries have banned or imposed moratoriums on fracking due to similar concerns.
- What actions did Greenpeace take to protest fracking in Nyékpuszta, Hungary, and what specific evidence did they present regarding environmental contamination?
- Greenpeace activists placed a "Stop fracking" banner on a drilling rig in Nyékpuszta, Hungary, protesting the fracking technique and its environmental impact. Their measurements showed benzol levels nearly double the daily limit over 13 days at one point. This action highlights concerns about water and air contamination from fracking chemicals.
- What are the potential long-term environmental and socio-economic consequences of continued fracking in Hungary, considering both the energy needs and the environmental risks?
- Greenpeace's actions put pressure on the Hungarian government to prioritize renewable energy over fracking. The discrepancy between Greenpeace's findings and the gas company's claims underscores the need for independent verification of environmental impacts. The ongoing debate highlights the tension between energy needs and environmental protection.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The headline and introduction emphasize Greenpeace's protest and their claims of pollution, framing the gas company's response as a mere rebuttal. The sequencing of information presents the environmental concerns first, potentially influencing readers to view fracking negatively before considering other perspectives.
Language Bias
The article uses terms like "rákkeltő benzol" (carcinogenic benzene) and mentions that fracking is banned in several European countries. While factually accurate, this language evokes a negative emotional response. More neutral language could be used, such as "benzene, a chemical with known health risks," and "fracking has been subject to moratoriums or bans in several European countries.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on Greenpeace's claims and actions, and the counterarguments from the gas company are presented briefly. The article doesn't delve into the economic implications of banning fracking in Hungary, nor does it explore alternative energy solutions in detail, beyond mentioning Greenpeace's advocacy for renewable energy. The long-term environmental impact assessment of fracking in the region is also missing.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a false dichotomy by framing the issue as a choice between fracking and renewable energy, without considering potential transitional energy sources or other mitigation strategies.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights Greenpeace's protest against fracking in Nyékpuszta, Hungary, citing environmental concerns and the release of pollutants. Fracking contributes significantly to greenhouse gas emissions, exacerbating climate change. The activists' actions and the reported presence of benzene in the air and groundwater directly relate to the negative impacts of fracking on climate and environmental sustainability, thus hindering progress towards climate action goals. The call for a shift towards renewable energy sources further emphasizes the connection to climate action.