This prediction is based on the assumption that the natural gas from fracking would be replaced by coal. If natural gas was replaced by renewable energy sources instead, a fracking ban would not raise CO2 emissions.

Question

Answer

Con: Countries that rely on a supply of natural gas would not be able to immediately replace natural gas with renewables, because currently there are not enough renewable energy facilities. However, there still exist many coal plants that could compensate for a decrease in natural gas.

Should fracking be banned? (PRO-Fracking)

This prediction is based on the assumption that the natural gas from fracking would be replaced by coal. If natural gas was replaced by renewable energy sources instead, a fracking ban would not raise CO2 emissions.

Pros

Cons

Countries that rely on a supply of natural gas would not be able to immediately replace natural gas with renewables, because currently there are not enough renewable energy facilities. However, there still exist many coal plants that could compensate for a decrease in natural gas.

Selected claim, opposing its parent

This prediction is based on the assumption that the natural gas from fracking would be replaced by coal. If natural gas was replaced by renewable energy sources instead, a fracking ban would not raise CO2 emissions.

Con claim 1

Countries that rely on a supply of natural gas would not be able to immediately replace natural gas with renewables, because currently there are not enough renewable energy facilities. However, there still exist many coal plants that could compensate for a decrease in natural gas.