The debate surrounding the use of hydraulic fracturing (also known as “fracking” or “HF”) to extract natural gas from the Marcellus and Utica Shale deposits is often characterized as a tension between economic development and environmental risks. However, frequently missing from this dichotomy is the fact that the concerns of many who oppose HF use extend beyond the purely “environmental,” and include concerns about issues such as “the natural resource curse” and losing autonomy. These concerns ring of “environmental justice” rather than “environmentalism.” Environmental justice espouses the belief that no group should bear disproportionate environmental consequences resulting from industrial activity, and that people affected by industrial activity should be meaningfully involved in implementation. Although some federal and state policies acknowledge principles of environmental justice, it has yet to be meaningfully incorporated into any legal framework in the United States.This Article argues that a nuanced characterization of the HF controversy should include a more robust discussion of both environmental justice and discourse in order to account for the inordinate burden residents of Appalachia have historically borne in fossil fuel production. Part I examines relevant regional economic and social dynamics, including the natural resource curse, Appalachia’s unique vulnerabilities, efforts to portray opponents of shale gas development as“anti-science,” and the environmental justice movement’s relationship to extractive industries. Part II reviews the use of modern HF technology and applicable legal frameworks in West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and New York. Part III argues that across Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia, environmental justice issues have arisen from shale gas development, including problemsstemming from information asymmetries, power asymmetries, and limited access to justice. In Part IV, the Article argues that the “anti-science” portrayal of shale gas opponents is unjustified, and that such “discourse-framing” obfuscates the actual costs and limitations on benefits of HF use, and thus, becomes an environmental justice issue itself. Part IV also argues that environmental justice concerns shaped public sentiment in New York, and that the resulting “moral outrage” added to New York’s policy decision to ban HF altogether. In Part V, the Article suggeststhat ideas which transcend the study of “moral outrage,” risk assessment, and environmental justice advocacy may offer a way forward.

中文翻译：

---

超越科学和歇斯底里：围绕 Marcellus 和 Utica 页岩气开发的环境正义问题的现实和看法

围绕使用水力压裂（也称为“压裂”或“HF”）从 Marcellus 和 Utica 页岩矿床中提取天然气的争论通常被描述为经济发展与环境风险之间的紧张关系。然而，这种二分法经常忽略的事实是，许多反对使用 HF 的人的担忧超出了纯粹的“环境”，包括对“自然资源诅咒”和失去自主权等问题的担忧。这些关注的是“环境正义”而不是“环保主义”。环境正义支持这样一种信念，即任何群体都不应该承担工业活动造成的不成比例的环境后果，受工业活动影响的人们应该有意义地参与实施。尽管一些联邦和州政策承认环境正义原则，但它尚未被有意义地纳入美国的任何法律框架。本文认为，HF 争议的细微特征应该包括对环境正义和环境正义的更深入的讨论。为了解释阿巴拉契亚居民历来在化石燃料生产中承受的过重负担。第一部分考察了相关的区域经济和社会动态，包括自然资源诅咒、阿巴拉契亚独特的脆弱性、将页岩气开发的反对者描述为“反科学”的努力，以及环境正义运动与采掘业的关系。第二部分回顾了西弗吉尼亚州现代高频技术的使用和适用的法律框架，宾夕法尼亚州、俄亥俄州和纽约州。第三部分认为，在俄亥俄州、宾夕法尼亚州和西弗吉尼亚州，页岩气开发引发了环境正义问题，包括信息不对称、权力不对称和诉诸司法的机会有限。在第四部分，文章认为页岩气反对者的“反科学”描述是不合理的，这种“话语框架”混淆了使用氢氟酸的实际成本和收益的局限性，从而成为一个环境正义问题本身。第四部分还认为，环境正义问题塑造了纽约的公众情绪，由此产生的“道德愤怒”加剧了纽约完全禁止 HF 的政策决定。在第五部分中，文章提出了超越“道德暴行”研究、风险评估、