The Journey of Racial Prejudice in Shakespeare’s Othello

by Herman Bailey | Feb 15, 2023 | Essays | 0 comments

Toker in this article amicably portrays Othello story. At the beginning of the article, Othello is seen as a rare hero with a dark skin something that was not actually well received during this period at Venice (1). Toker captures this by highlighting how Lago and Roderigo referred to Othello as “he” or “him “, “thick lips”, “the Moor” and “the Barbary horse “ (19). Racism theme is portrayed extensively as the Toker takes us through the journey of the past during this period where though the aliens were accepted during this periods to roam the street of Venice their rights were limited (1).This article takes as to a journey of Othello from an “Honorary white” to a transformed mediocre who was pictured as an outcast of both sensual and racial difference.

People Also Read

• Top 100 Othello Essay Topics for Students
• Tomorrow’s car

Toker takes us down the memory lane to help us to know why racism was outrageous at this period of time (6). He states that this period was the most disgraceful and embarrassing of the western tradition and civilisation. He depicts clearly how a white race was considered superior and socially it was unaccepted for the society to accept a marital union of a black man and a white woman. Toker links the shameful racism to the early modern theories of which accentuated the consequence of purity and the requirement of maintaining the pure nation by avoiding contamination of their seeds by any other consideration to be inferior (8). The article evidently describes how the Elizabethans were seeing themselves as a reflection of God and black in people was seen as a deformity or abnormality of some sort.

Toker points out that, besides the fact, the moor were allowed to walk the street of Venice. Moreover, the whites were allowed to keep them as the slave, and even queen kept them to play music for her they were not full welcomed into the system and even queen Elizabeth despite having interacted with them went ahead to issue manifesto against the Moore in the year the 1590s (7).

In this article Toker shows the approaches and attitudes that the English people used towards the outsiders who were seen as alien (7). The article is used to show the racial prejudice that Othello is subjected to in the hands of civilized and democratic citizens of Venice. The origin of the word “moor” which was used to refer to the blacks, is described by Toker as it came through a period where blacks were accepted after a long period of being seen as of no rights and were subjected to slavery this was around 16th century (7).

Toker sees modern Theory as a catalyst for this kind of racial segregation as the theory linked the northerners as a superior race giving them more advantages than the aliens at the south (8). The south was seen as jealous, physical, fainthearted, savage and diabolic.

Toker also capture’s the humanity aspect of Othello. In this, he wanted to narrow the gap between the races (12). Though hidden he wanted to pass the message that as much as he was black, he was a hero one could relate with, unlike the previous ones whose character was faced by imagery, mysterious convulsion and ghosts.

On the critics of the play, Toker tries to explain how the core theme of this play was involved (6). He points out that as much as racism was there and the black skinned people were seen as of poor race, they were highly regarded, Othello rose through ranks to become a highly ranked general in the army. This was a prestigious position during this time, and this fact downplays the extent portrayed in the play.

Toker criticises the book that is based on racism whereas Othello was highly regarded (10). Othello hated being a moor and always thought of himself as an outsider. Contrary to what the book depicts during this time Toker says the foreigners were highly regarded to the extent they were appointed foreign mercenary generals a position that was high in the military power (10).

According to Toker as much as the play appears to be leaning towards the theme of racial segregation the major and core theme here is emotional jealous (17). He backs this up by the fact that Brabantio saw Othello as a distinguished soldier and an honourable guest, this was before the news of his elopement with Desdemona surfaced. Othello troubles began when his elopement was known to the public and everything he was as a person was diluted and lost including his relationship with Brabantio.

The moor according to Toker was considered as a suitor for the hand of the beautiful and elegant Portia in the merchant of the Venice though after picking the golden casket he was unsuccessful (13). But the fact that he was considered for a suitor points towards some acceptance from the society Othello, on the other hand, was an honourable soldier, but his marriage to Desdemona was what led to his predicament of losing everything even the honour he previously had.

Brabantio and Lago due to the civilized society that they came from according to Toker were not ready to accept their superior race to be contaminated with Othello’s black race. The word that Brabantio uttered immediately he knew Othello was getting married to Desdemona according to Toker indicates. He shouted with anger calling people to come and witness the injustice that is about to happen in their race in regards to matrimony.

The books go against general prejudices as it represents Othello as a noble soldier and a person of rarest quality as observed by Toker, he goes further to illustrate how when the play was watched at the end of it one would hate Lago and Othello would be admired (20).

The use of a black skinned character is illustrated by Toker as he sees it as a tool that Shakespeare used to convince the audience to confine their stereotyped to black skinned people or aliens. Toker points out that when the black slave rose to be a commander and commanded the white soldiers and went an extra mile to fall in love with Angelica this shows devotion in the side of Othello (21).

Worked Cited

s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/36288843/Othello_-_Alien_in_Venice.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A&Expires=1524033613&Signature=XFvp7M%2BUzePXIlCovP3063DjCUQ%3D&response-content-dis… .

Herman Bailey

With a student-centered approach, I create engaging and informative blog posts that tackle relevant topics for students. My content aims to equip students with the knowledge and tools they need to succeed academically and beyond.

The Impacts of the Longest Government Shutdown in the U.S. History

by Herman Bailey | Feb 15, 2023 | Essays | 0 comments

A government shutdown, in reference to the politics of the United States, happens when the Congress does not pass, or when the President fails to sign agencies, and the appropriations funding federal legislation of the operations of the government. The federal government shutdown in the United States happened in 2018 to 2019 on 22nd December 2018 up to 25 January 2019 making a 35 days’ government shutdown. Notably, in history, it was the longest government shutdown in the United States as well as the government second federal shutdown that involved furloughs during the reigns of Mr. Trump.

People Also Read

• Exploring the Key Distinctions between Democracy and Other Forms of Government
• Top 100 American Government Essay Topics for Students
• Financial problems of Texas government

The government shutdown took place when President Donald Trump Republican and the United States 15th Congress did not come to an agreement on the bill appropriations of funding the federal government operations for the fiscal year of 2019, or a temporary resolution continuity focused on extending the bill passing deadline. The Anti-deficiency Act that led to the government shutdown prohibited federal agencies or departments from carrying out non-essential actions without the presence of the appropriations legislation. Consequently, executive departments, around nine of them with approximately 800,000 employees were partially shut down or fully shut down, impacting on more than one-fourth of the activities of the government resulting to forcing of employees to work or furloughing of employees without pay. The office of Congressional Budget approximated the cost of the shutdown to the economy of America to a total of about $ 11 billion, with exclusions of the indirect costs that were not possible to quantify (Gelman et al, 21).

To start with, I believe that even though the government shutdown was supposed to bring out good news through the building of the security wall to stop drug trafficking, massive crime, gangs invasion, and human trafficking in the Southern Border, the shutdown resulted to a significant decrease in the approval rate of President Trump. Remarkably, a good number of Americans were against the shutdown as they regarded it as a strategy of exploitation, pointing a figure on Mr. Trump as being accountable for the government shutdown. Noteworthy, according to the results from the News poll of the CBS, about 71 percent of the Americans termed the construction of the border wall as “not worth” for the government shutdown. Besides, in reference to the Washington Post poll as well as the ABC news, both revealed that about 53 percent of the Americans had all the blames on the Republicans and the president for the shutdown, even though a 34 percent of the Americans had their blames on the Democrats with 10 percent blaming the two parties (Gelman et al, 13). Thus, with examinations of the poll percentages, my opinion is that the government shutdown was so exploitative and the building of the southern border will never equal to the exploitative effects of the government shutdown, hence not worth.

On top of this, due to the government shutdown, more than 800,000 employees in the federal, as well as the natives who mainly depended on the government, were hurt as a result of the shutdown (Gelman et al, 11). Worth mentioning, with a fast, peeking above his bubble, Mr. Trump was supposed to learn a lot on the government employees legions and contractors who had to spent the best part of the holiday season hurting on how the next payment of their mortgage or their grocery store trips or electric bill in case the political charade dragged much longer. With high considerations of how the government shutdown had inflicted much pain on the Americans whose lives had been negatively affected in different ways, in my opinion, the government shutdown to build the security wall was not worth the lives of American Citizens.

Additionally, President Trump insisted on $ 5.7 billion in funding the security border wall. He argued that a security and humanitarian crisis existed in regards to the southern border that was a must to be addressed before the end of the government shutdown. On the other hand, Democrats insisted that there was no crisis big enough to equal to a shutdown, and there was a need to reopen the government before starting any negotiations on the release of any money to fund border security wall building (Gelman et al, 2). I think that as the Democrats have stated on the lack of a crisis that can equal to a government shutdown, the amount of money to be released or the time required for the negotiations in releasing the money is a lot, thus the government operations that were on hold were more important than the building of the security wall.

Most importantly, the building of the security wall was President Trump political action because as documented, Mr. Trump was almost signing a deal on a short term basis involving congressional Democrats in keeping open the government up to 2019 without any funds being released for the funding of the wall, of which he reversed his ideal immediately. This happened because Trump’s base conflicted at his idea of possibly going back on his promise during the campaign of building the wall. The base argued that, if Mr. Trump took that action, he would get nothing in return with the Democrats getting the victory. However, according to Mr. Trump, he did not seem to accept that the security wall was based on political actions but he said that the wall was primarily a border security issue (Gelman et al, 20). Nonetheless, from every Americans’ perspective, the government shutdown was an issue of Mr. Trump’s personal political insecurity since when the Democrats will start raging on him, he will just back off and lose track in front of everyone. Hence, in my opinion, the government shutdown was not the right decision the President made because it was due to political insecurity and the reason was not strong enough to make Americans go through such exploitation.

Conversely, even though the government shutdown affected the Americans negatively, the security wall would result in positive impacts. For example, who does not wish to live in a country free from drug trafficking, human trafficking, gang crisis, or massive crisis? According to Donald Trump, the security wall was supposed to be the beginning of an end to all these crimes since no border security can be achieved without the existence of a wall. He remarked that the technology and the drones were just whistles and bells. For a fact, the American President knew that immigration, which would be stopped by the security wall, was the most important issue cared by his base and that what made him with the 2016 presidential election. Thus, his strongholds were keen on the betrayal signs of the President’s failure to fund the wall, thus a resolution on the money release for the funding of the wall should be negotiated to first stop the government shutdown then release money for the funding of the security wall.

Works Cited

Gelman, Michael, et al. *How individuals smooth spending: Evidence from the 2019 government shutdown using account data*. National Bureau of Economic Research, 2019.

Herman Bailey

With a student-centered approach, I create engaging and informative blog posts that tackle relevant topics for students. My content aims to equip students with the knowledge and tools they need to succeed academically and beyond.

Understanding Diversity in Human Behavior and Its Importance

by Herman Bailey | Feb 14, 2023 | Essays | 0 comments

Diversity covers the differences that exist in human beings. Previously, diversity in socialization and development of human behavior was considered as the concept of differences between various groups of people, their socialization techniques and culture. However, in recent times, diversity has come to be known as the differences not just between communities but between the human beings themselves.  Some of these changes are part of the genetic construction which means that in such cases people sharing particular physical features and traits are prone to the development of certain behavior. On the other hand, there are those differences that stem from life experiences and the environment from which such groups of individuals are socialized.  According to (Elster 1999) diversity is the different forms of behavior that stem from the ethnic groups, genders, state of origin and religion among other factors. He continues to say that diversity also includes perspectives of life and life style choices.

On the other hand inclusion tries as much as possible to minimize the diverse nature of human beings. Traditional societies and strict religious groups are perhaps the best example of inclusion in the study of human behavior. Individuals are socialized to dress alike, follow strict procedures in everyday activities even when in private. In such societies, members can be identified simply by their behavior.  (Sigelman and Shaffer 1991) in his analysis of such cultures showed that members lack even the basic individual thoughts characteristic of human nature. Such thoughts have been suppressed by what such individuals consider to be the norm and culture. It is almost as if they have been brainwashed, rebellion against the uniformity of the society is not only frowned upon but also attracts severe punishments.

Diversity and Human Behavior

Ashworth (2000) states that diversity in development of human behavior stems not from nature but rather from the varying socialization processes.  In all psychological theories relationships are vital in the development of behavior.  Psychologists agree that human behavior in itself is not only complex but also diverse in nature. Even in societies where similarities seem to exist and rule; the internal human behavior in individuals within the society is quite different.  The uniqueness of each human being in terms of physicality and thoughts leads to different relationships with the environment and socialization process and therefore development of particular behaviors. Diversity is not acquired through nature; it is in fact the nature of the human beings. Human beings cannot exist without diversity.

Darwin in his evolutionary theories built on the basis that human beings are diverse in nature. According to him, the resources required for the existence of human beings are scarce and therefore there exists much completion. Only the strong and the best adjusted human beings in the species survive the competition and evolve to become stronger and more suitably adjusted to the environment. According to this therefore, behavior develops in an attempt to adapt to the fats evolving environment. Each individual designs their own coping mechanisms for that which they consider most suitable to the environment. Since human beings continue to exist in completion and will continue to do so for a long time, young ones will be socialized into an evolving environment. They are required to develop their own unique survival skills in order to continue existing. This is why technology continues to change on a daily basis. Human beings in their own diverse ways are still attempting to survive in the evolving world.

Cognitive theories explaining the development of human behavior are also based on the assumption that diversity is vital and indeed the only way individuals acquire behavioral trends.  According to cognitive theorists, behavior begins forming in the mind even before birth. As a child is born, they come into the world with their own view of the existence and world forms. As they interact with the environment such thoughts become influences, transform and change to what the society may consider normative. However, (Wade and Tavris 2000) highlights that diversity in human behavior comes not from the thoughts alone, but in fact from the interaction and relationship between the thoughts and the environment. In an attempt to adapt to the environment, human beings develop a thought process which then guides their behavior. This though process is responsible for adaptation to the changes that they may encounter. For example when two children grow up as orphans, facing almost the same challenges that come from the lack of parental care; one may become focused and in fact achieve high success in an attempt to fight fate, yet another could resign themselves into depression and a longer list of maladaptive tendencies and still another could resort to crime seeing this as the only avenue for success. Each of the individuals have faced the same challenges in a similar environment; what has differed is the relationship between thought and environment.

The humanistic approach to behavior development concurs with the cognitive perspective while at the same time challenging many of the fundamentals and offering a variety of core principles that encourage diversity in human behavior. (Gray 1999).  (Bijou and Ribes, 1996) states that the humanistic approach is perhaps the one theory through which the influence of diversity in behavior is not only encourages but best understood. Humanistic theorists begin by indicating that human beings are far from similar. In fact, according to them the differences are astronomical between one individual and another. Children brought up in a similar family, with the same resources and environment are as different as day and light.  Human beings are beyond what humanistic theorists call components and parts of a human being.  What makes us human is beyond the fact that we have hands, eyes and even a functional brain. These are just components and the behavior of a human being cannot be broken down into such components.  Carl Rogers, Maslow and Moustakas focused on this assumption to describe issues such as the self and individuality as it responds to human behavior.

Diversity of human behavior comes not from socialization or learned behavior but from conscious efforts. Human beings are not only aware of their own behavior, they are also aware that they are aware of their behavior. Therefore each decision to pursue a particular behavior is a conscious effort to meet a particular need.  Behavior must need this need in order to be emphasized. People move away from norms and values that have been ingrained from them since childhood dimply because such norms no longer meet the state of their needs and requirements. Since they are conscious of themselves, these theorists believe that they cannot be manipulated unless such manipulation is directed at meeting particular needs. The intelligence of the human being comes from this particular characteristic.

(Cicarelli and Mayer, 2006) concur that human beings exist because they have a choice. This is why laws are out in place because human beings have choices in the selection of behavior and because of their diversity not all will elect the normative choice. This choice according to humanistic supporters comes with responsibility which is the main aspect of socialization. Socialization into the society is not a system through which learned behaviors are passed from one generation to another. Rather, it is a system through which human beings become aware of their choices and the reasonability that each choice carries. Children do not steal, not because they have learnt not to steal but because they will go to jail. (Baron and Kalsher 2001) further states that is if they indeed find a way to steal without being caught and therefore escape punishment then that will be the norm and acceptable choice to them despite what they have learnt. The choice factor makes the human being so diverse that they cannot respond to similar circumstances in the same way even when all other factors are held constant. How they respond to the responsibility determines the actual result of the behavior. All behaviors of the human being are not haphazard or as robotic as Freud and skinner described and stated. Human beings engage in a particular behavior because they expect certain rewards to come from such behavior. If the rewards do not come forth, they are most likely to change paths and attempt a new way of gaining the same rewards. For example, an employee will go to work daily, work hard and meet their targets in an attempt to be financially secure. However, after a while they will become corrupt and attempt shorter routes to earn the same money easily and faster.

Inclusion and Human Behavior

There have been many misconceptions surrounding the concept of inclusivity.  Many make the assumption that inclusivity means that human beings are mostly similar in majority of their choices and decisions. However, the concept of inclusivity acknowledges that human beings are indeed diverse, and in fact attempts to make explanations with regard to such differences. Inclusivity covers the attempts by society and culture to integrate human beings into similar behaviors.  Inclusivity attempts to reduce the diverse nature of individuals by using various socialization methods. In inclusive societies, regulations, norms and beliefs are strict. Punishments for misbehavior or behavior against the norm draw severe punishments. The freedom of thought and free will is in turn curtailed.

Traditional societies are renowned for the concept of inclusivity. Inclusivity allows the survival of societies. This is especially the case where competition for resources is high. Instead of encouraging diverse thoughts and behavior, which would in turn encourage completion among individuals; society encouraged the inclusive similar thoughts on survival. All individuals are expected to act according to the norm under which children are socialized. In such cases, socialization is not expected to draw out differences but rather to make individuals more similar. People and children act in a particular way not because of the law or even because of their conscious thoughts but rather because they come from a particular society which acts in such a way. Therefore, female children will for example cover their heads with hijabs even when others are not; not because of beauty or fashion but rather because they are Muslim and Muslim girls cover their heads. Socialization therefore becomes about mastering the rules and regulations, rather than encouraging individual thought. The root of particular behaviors can be traced back to the socialization to particular rules and regulation specific to that society.

Inclusion requires that behavior be taught rather than naturally acquired. Skinners operant conditioning covers the ideal inclusion system.  According to skinner, thoughts can be suppressed and behavior encourage through either positive or negative reinforcement. Majority of the inclusive communities often encourage negative reinforcement. Behavior that is not the norm is punished; individuals are therefore forced to conform. In extreme societies the punishment is also extreme. In a regular society parents punish children for example for hitting another child in order to discourage such behavior. On the other hand, proper eating habits and good grades are awarded thereby reinforcing that particular behavior. Children left to their own diverse nature would deteriorate, and end up without any motivation for good behavior. (Lefton 1997) in his research found that children who come from homes where they are punished for bad behavior and rewarded for good behavior tended to have more focused goals and successful lives. On the other hand, children whose upbringing focused more on their diversity tended to have problems with authority even at the work place, had no clear goals career or otherwise and problems relating with society. A good number of them were in trouble with the law. (Carlson et al 2004) stated that for socialization to work in society, children and generations need to be socialized into particular behaviors rather than be held responsible for their own decisions. Individuals make decisions on the choice of behavior based on what they have been taught and socialized is the norm. Inclusion is designed to promote equitability among the shared resources. Members of the community lack nothing because they share resources equally. Everyone knows what is required of them, resources are shared according to the rules and therefore there is less likelihood of deviant behavior arising from greed to arise and develop.

Freud based his inclusive theory on the nature of human beings. According to him, we are all alike internally, and are made up of the same components. Therefore the development of behavior in each stage can be attributed to a similar characteristic within the human child. He breaks down the stages of development into five stages coinciding with the human being developmental stages: oral stage, anal stage, phallic stage, latency and genital stage.  (Allen and Marotz 2000) cites that socialization of children into particular behaviors is designed by society to coincide directly with these stages. For example, toilet training on average begins during the anal stage and is perfected here. On the other hand, the heightened concern for risky sexual behaviors among the teens can be attributed to the poor socialization during the genital stage.  In the same way he continues to counter that girls and boys are more attached to parents of the opposite sex citing the experiences of various respondents simple because of the remnant socialization during the phallic stage.

Inclusive behavior development therefore focuses more on the similarities of the human beings, heightening them so that the diversity that indeed exists becomes immaterial and in some cases non-existent in society.

CONCLUSION

Both inclusion and diversity are important aspects that help to understand the development of human behavior. There has often been a common misconception that human behavior is only attributed to the diverse nature of human beings. However, this fails to explain how people who may not even be aware of each other’s existence make almost the same decisions in life, take particular steps and lead a life that is quite similar. Inclusion is vital for society to continue in positive normative development. Left to their own devices and to cultivate the diverse nature, greed, pride and jealousy among other negative feelings are likely to take over leading to the development of negative behaviors.

Diversity on the other hand is the best way to progress. Without diversity, technology, nature and even progress among the human race would be impossible. Diversity encourages people to explore their uniqueness and though this may lead to negative behavior it is vital for purposes of balance. Without diversity, competition for resources would be stiff and the human race would be tottering on the brink of extinction. Human beings by nature are unique, both in mind and physical structure. Such differences are to be explored through positive channels. Socialization into particular behaviors needs to focus on exploring the various channels through which the diverse nature of human beings can be understood.  To understand both inclusion and diversity, scholars need to adopt a macro view taking into account human nature and the environment in which particular behaviors are developed.  Without this understanding the full potential of inclusion or diversity out together cannot be understood and therefore explored to encourage positive cultural developments and human behavior.

REFERENCES

Allen, K. E., & Marotz, L. R. (2000). By the ages: Behavior & development of children pre-birth through eight. Albany, NY: Delmar Thomson Learning.

Ashworth, P. D. (2000). Psychology and ‘human nature’. London: Taylor & Francis.

Baron, R. A., & Kalsher, M. J. (2001). Psychology. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Bijou, S. W., & Ribes, E. (1996). New directions in behavior development. Reno, NV: Context Press.

Carlson, N. R., Martin, G. N., & Buskist, W. (2004). Psychology. Harlow: Pearson Education.

Ciccarelli, S. K., & Meyer, G. E. (2006). Psychology. Upper Saddle River, N.J: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Elster, J. (1999). Strong feelings: Emotion, addiction, and human behavior. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

Gray, P. (1999). Psychology. New York: Worth Publishers.

Lefton, L. A. (1997). Psychology. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Sigelman, C. K., & Shaffer, D. R. (1991). Life-span human development. Pacific Grove, Calif: Brooks/Cole Pub.

Wade, C., & Tavris, C. (2000). Psychology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Herman Bailey

With a student-centered approach, I create engaging and informative blog posts that tackle relevant topics for students. My content aims to equip students with the knowledge and tools they need to succeed academically and beyond.

Environmental Considerations and Effects of Shale Gas in the EU and the USA

by Herman Bailey | Feb 13, 2023 | Essays | 0 comments

Introduction

All over the world “Shale gas” is a topic in every newsroom and every environmental activist as well as economic critic’s campaigns; it keeps interchanging between ‘Shale gas’ and “Hydraulic fragmentation’. [1]This has become a substantially important concept; due to its significant impact on United States (US) gas production; in the European Union (EU). As the twenty-first century began the US went into a great ‘shale gas boom”’. In almost eight years the shale gas share grew from barely 2 %, and rose to 19% of US overall and total gas production; thus shale gas becomes a significant energy source in the energy production industry.

Related Posts

• Exploring the Environmental Consequences of Shale Gas Production in the EU
• Internal and Environmental Analyses
• HOTEL OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT
• Top 100 Environmental Issues Essay
• KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS: CASE OF GRECIAN BANK

The US mines its shale gas from deep rock formations underground. [2]US is amongst other EU member states who discovered shale in significant amounts for energy production; although the US is the leading country in its utilization of shale gas in energy production. EU is strategically planning to indulge in shale gas production on a large-scale basis; however, there are several factors to put into consideration; particularly the environmental impacts of shale gas production processes.

[3]Shale gas production entails substantial benefits; the major merits of shale gas production include a decrease in the levels of dependency on imported gas and building on the production of gas domestically. [4]Secondly, utilization of gas serves as a substitute for fuels that are carbon-intensive such as coal as well as oil, thus effectively achieving a decrease in the emissions from greenhouse-gas. Thirdly, there are several economic benefits in shale gas production through exporting the gas as well as creating a wide range of job opportunities for the unemployed.

[5]Besides the beneficial factors of shale production, there are quite a range of demerits that come with shale gas production as well; particularly critical environmental impacts. Amongst the disadvantages of shale production are pollution of the air, contamination of activities that result in physical healthiness. For example, proper diet, ensuring that all meals are balanced and taking a lot of water, noise pollution; as well as chemicals release into the environment causing significant pollution to the environment. Therefore, the EU has come up with an environmental regulatory framework with the primary objective of enabling protection of the environment against the effects of shale gas production; particularly for the US.[6]It is important to note however that there is a substantial difference between the environmental law implementation and lawmaking process in both the US as well as the EU; therefore understanding the implementation of the environmental laws as well as the lawmaking process is crucial.

In this particular research the preparation component of the environmental regulatory framework of the EU; involving the protection of the environment against the significant pollution that results from the production of the shale gas process; particularly in the US. From the 1940s the US has been indulged in the utilization of shale gas production for energy source purposes. [7]Therefore, over the years of experience in the production of shale gas the US has gained significant experience as well as knowledge of regulations of the growing issues affecting the environment in concern to the shale gas production process; thus presenting a suitable and substantially appropriate legal regime to bring into comparison with the EU law. Moreover, with the most recent developments in scaling and processes of production of shale gas; bringing forth a thorough comparison of both the EU and the US federal regulation as captivating research particularly to determine the ongoing debate discussing whether or not the current EU environmental legislation has the capabilities to efficiently control the production of shale gas within the present near future.

[8]The member states of the EU together with the US states are currently receiving Acts from the US as well as regulations and directives from the EU in regards to environmental legislation; from the distinct central governments. Besides the distinct differences that exist between the EU structure and the US federation; partly because the EU is currently nota federation and instead stands as a ‘collaboration’ of the twenty-seven member states of the EU; there are quite a several similarities that exist in both systems in regards to legislation towards environmental protection.[9]The primary similarity between the EU and the US federal government is that the EU member states, as well as the US states, are limited to implementing directions from the central environmental legislation; and thus be limited to dealing with the direct bindings of central regulations directed from the related centralized EU or the federal legislator. [10]This research on the EU and the US environmental legislation is effectively examined in association with an extension as to which the different states can derogate from the directives as well as the federal acts and regulations in concern to the production of shale gas. Having a comparison on the level of flexibility as well as the applicability of the present environmental legislation; therefore the thesis thus demonstrates and identifies whether the US or the EU effectively establishes a significantly coherent system; upon which all the member states are provided the same environmental protection minimum level by the central environmental laws.

The research has its first chapter examining the environmental issues brought about by the production of shale gas, the EU and US future of production of shale gas, and perusing the primary statements as well as policies of the US states and the EU member states in concern to Production of shale gas. [11]A better comprehension of the shale gas production background is crucial in addressing the present environmental concerns as well as the legislation applicable.

The research has its second chapter examining the existing differences between the EU and the US lawmaking processes for environmental laws. [12]Therefore, to initiate an effective legal analysis between the two distinctively different legal systems it is vital to efficiently comprehend the procedures involved in law-making within both of the systems. Moreover, this particular chapter thoroughly identifies the advantages, as well as disadvantages of the centrally directed, regulate in regards to the regulations of the activities involved in the production of shale gas processes. The third chapter will focus on scrutinizing the laws applicable to shale gas production; in the EU as well as the US. Examining the possibilities and open norms in concern to derogation by the member states in question. The fourth chapter, together with the last chapter thrives in comparing the present environmental laws in the US as well as the EU. Putting into consideration the conclusions, as well as observations derived throughout the topics, discussed a substantial findings overview of the research. Lastly, the research concludes by drawing a conclusion by considering guidance from the discussed as well as addressed issues in the research.

Methodology

The primary purpose of this research is to effectively examine and determine the present EU environmental regulatory framework, thus enabling the regulation of various components throughout the production of the shale gas process through hydraulic fragmentation. [13]The definition and determination of whether the laws of the EU have the capabilities to effectively ensure regulation of all essential environmental aspects of the production of shale gas; thus making a thorough comparison between the EU, together with the US regulatory framework. [14]Particularly because the US has been indulged in shale gas production, as well as environmental related issues since the 1940s, the US thus stand s as the more appropriate regime to make a comparison against the laws of the EU. Since the US has a history of more than seventy years with shale gas extraction, this research presupposes the certainty of environmental protection in the US has developed.

Making a comparison will enhance the enabling a definite establishment of whether the present EU framework stands as a better component in the protection of the various environmental aspects brought about from the level of pollution caused by the production of shale gas by the process of hydraulic fragmentation. [15]The research ascertains a centrally or federally legislated regulatory framework consisting of the regulations that bind the member are in a better position to effectively protect the environment besides a set regulatory framework based within a weak centralized regulation which entails open possibilities as well as norms with aim of deviation for the US and EU member states from the regulations in question. In chapter two of the research, an argument, as well as reasoning, is stated towards this assertion.

This research carries out an analysis of two specific aspects of the current environmental legislation.[16] First of all, the legislation that is applicable to the production of shale gas processes is analyzed critically on the application probabilities. The second aspect brings forth the question of the existence of legislation that allows a state of deviation from its specific provisions; it also questions the states that are allowed the utilization of interpretations as well as whether or not the ‘central’ legislation is strictly binding. [17]Deriving answers to these essential questions will bring forth a conclusion that is established in which the regulatory regime of the EU stands as substantially more or lesser that as a determinant in the regulation of shale gas production, than the regulatory regime of the US.

The legislation scrutiny done in this research entails primarily of the relevant directives, EU regulations, policy documents as well as regulations effectiveness reports. [18]The US utilizes applicable federal acts. Environment Protection Agency of the US, and the EU’s Resources of the European Commission are utilized to ensure the creation of an overview that is comprehensive on the various legislations, together with getting a deeper perception of how compliance, as well as legislation, is implemented. [19]Various publications are utilized for a thorough review of the current legal framework to derive a deeper comprehension of the background of the environmental regulation in both the EU and the US. To achieve creation of an objective review, there are sources of the private as well as public resources and institutions from the US, together with the EU scholars are utilized throughout this research in order to create a debate that is well balanced.

[20]Shale gas production through the utilization of the process of hydraulic fragmentation presents a vast range of debatable issues. The scope is therefore limited because of the research’s magnitude. [21]The research carries out an examination of the permit process, authorization, environmental regulation, as well as the regulation of the various components within the environment throughout the production process; this includes the chemicals, air, and water. A major focus is driven towards the related issues; including the litigation possibilities, natural resources ownership, together with the liability issues that may arise from environmental pollution and harm.

The first chapter expounds on the background introduction, as well as the shale gas production possibilities. The second chapter is focused on expounding on the US and the EU’s environmental legal framework. The US federal law, as well as, EU differences are substantially addressed. The chapter also presents an argument on the merits and demerits of federal as well as EU environmental legislation. Chapter three addresses and scrutinizes the environmental legislation applicable. Describing the applicable laws that are related to the effective protection of the environment, more specifically the protection of the environment against air and water pollution, differences are demonstrated between the US and the EU. It also brings forth of US and EU’s summary of the various strength as well as weaknesses of the current legislation.

[22]In the conclusion, the EU and US frameworks have both their weaknesses and strengths through the definition of which system presents substantially strict norms, then leaving minimal discretion enabled to the member states to legislation adaptation or implementation of the EU legislation as well as federal legislation. Thus, the conclusion is based on the discussion’s results. The conclusion presents the answers to the questions arising in the previous chapters of the research. [23]Finally, the conclusion gives a research findings summary, together with a crucial review on the current legal frameworks eligibility towards the protection of the environment against pollution caused by the production of shale gas.

CHAPTER 1: Definition of Shale Gas

The chapter addresses the production of shale gas background. Since production of shale gas is through utilization of the hydraulic fragmentation processes, a relatively new method of extraction a thorough background is necessary for a definite comprehension of the complications involved in hydraulic fragmentation process. The hydraulic fragmentation process is a complex process that differs substantially from ordinary natural gas extraction. Therefore, the chapter entails of a short extraction overview, the probable pollutions of environment, environmental policies as well as the present shale gas production status in both the US and the EU.

Brief Shale Gas Extraction Description

[24]Natural resources as categorized into two distinct classes; unconventional and conventional resources. Natural resources that are in the unconventional resources class refer to the uncommon and less identified energy sources; for instance tight sandstone, coal bed methane as well as shale gas. [25]Shale gas, however, stands out as the most often used. Shale gas is derived from reservoirs located deep into the surface within the coal beds as well as rock formations. The extraction method that is utilized often to obtain shale gas is ‘fracking’; otherwise known as the Hydraulic Fragmentation.

[26]The hydraulic fragmentation method involves drilling a well horizontally into the earth’s surface to enable access to the layer of the earth holding the shale gas, also known as the ‘shale formation’, beneath the surface. Once drilling is complete, a number of gaps are formed within the well’s horizontal part. When the well is completely done and gap creation has occurred; explosive charges are placed to fire up the well’s horizontal side through the utilization of the gaps that were created, right into the ‘shale formation’. These explosives significantly perforate the well as well as the ‘shale formation’. These perforations are referred to as fractures. Once fractures occur fluid is simultaneously pumped into the well, together with the fractures with substantially high levels of pressure. Thus, forcing the fluid to effectively transport the gas from deep within the well up to the top of the surface where both the fluid as well as gas gathers. [27]The fluid is referred to as ‘fracking fluid’, it is a combination of a number of components, namely; sand, water and various chemicals. Each of the components has their distinct purpose and role in the ‘fracking fluid’. The ‘proppant’,which is the sand in the activities that result to physical healthiness. For example, proper diet, ensuring that all meals are balanced and taking a lot of water is functioned to keep fractures opened with aim of enabling the flow of gas throughout the shale formations, as well as the transportation to the well’s top. [28]The primary function of the chemicals is to decrease the level of friction within the pipelines, and to enhance the fluid pumping into the shale formation. Thereafter one the extraction process is complete, utilization of gas resources occurs and both the pipelines and well are retrieved; thus restoring the drilling site.

1.1.1 Shale Gas Production and Environmental Concerns

As mentioned earlier shale gas production is a relatively complex comparison when compared to the conventional gas extraction. [29]The key aspect of the process of extraction is the ‘fracking’ fluid injections into the fractures, located deep within the surface of the earth. The major environmental concern in relation to ‘fracking’ fluid is the existence of the mixtures chemicals. After injection of fluids into the fractures a substantial amount of fluid is not fully recovered after the process of extraction. Therefore, with less than 100% of the fluid recovered, a percentage of the waste fluids is released into the environment. Thus, the waste fluids cause contamination caused by the chemicals both in the ground waters as well as the surface.

Apart from the contamination caused in the groundwater as well as on the surface hydraulic fragmentation may cause a vast range of impacts as well as pollutions onto the environment. [30]For instance, the constant releasing of air pollutants, utilization of land for the extraction sites as well as the necessary infrastructure, introduced risks to the humans, plants and animals within the extraction site area, noise pollution during the extraction process and during traffic to and from the site of extraction. [31]Furthermore, it also risks degradation to the overall visual view of the environment as well as the risks to increased seismic events throughout the extraction site area.

Presently the EU has a number of concerns as mentioned above that are addressed by the environmental legislation of the EU. [32]However, some environment parts remain protected less from the risks of pollution caused by the process of extraction of shale gas. Nevertheless, the concerns in question are adopted by the European Parliament’s resolution.

The US has been undertaking production of shale gas from the 1940’s. Therefore, as a result of this relatively long relationship with shale gas production, the US has attained a substantial experience in management of the environmental issues as well as the environmental regulations in concern to production of shale gas production. Thus landing the US with an appropriate legal regime to have a detailed comparison against the EU laws. Despite the production of shale gas in the EU still not on a large scale basis, a sizeable regulation as well as directives covers the environmental issues brought about by shale gas production. [33]The environmental impacts brought about by shale gas production result in cross boundary impacts; a good example being air emission and contamination of water. [34]Since environmental pollution complexity and the risks involved in the human as well as environmental health resulted from the production of shale gas, the pollution to the environment from extraction of shale gas should be regulated efficiently by the US federal government or by the EU to enable maintenance of a quality environment throughout the regions.

Shale Gas Production Present Status

European Union

[35]At the present date production of shale gas in the EU has been done in a small scale basis. EU’s member states have began venturing into shale gas production in a small scale basis, while some of them have permits they had issued in waiting for the Government’s approval. Due to shale gas production’s negative impacts, a great debate is currently on-going in the EU. Nevertheless, there is a significant amount of pressure exerted onto EU to begin shale gas production because today’s crucial changes in the energy markets. Moreover, the EU views the shale gas with its great potential in the energy industry.

[36]Not to mention that in the EU, amongst the member states there is an existing debate in the differing opinions. In concern to the probabilities of beginning shale gas production within the EU, great concerns about the hydraulic fragmentation is presently causing EU to be divided in a debate of those in support of and those in reluctance in opinions in perceptions of shale gas production. The EU member states are divided into two distinct groups. There is a group of shale gas production supporters , consisting of both the EU states as well as the energy sourced industries. [37]This particular group stands with the perception of production of shale gas as a source of numerous economic benefits, job opportunities, as well as, reduced dependency of importation of gas. On the other hand, the second group of debate is within a substantial level awareness of the negative harmful effects that are brought about by the process of hydraulic fragmentation; and are therefore highly resistant towards approval of hydraulic fragmentation within the EU, particularly in their individual regions. Thus, the group has its concerns primarily based on the present inconsistency of quality standards as well as the significant lack of sufficient data in assessment of the environmental impacts caused by production of shale gas.

[38]It is clear that the member states of the EU have substantial shale resources and thus stand at a more proponent position for the shale gas extraction than others. For instance, Poland is perceived as the most probable member state within the EU to begin the extraction of shale gas. Poland holds a significant amount of shale resources, greater than all the other EU member states. [39]Apart from Poland, in the year 2011 the United Kingdom (UK) began by approving and allowing the extraction of shale gas. However after the unfortunate Black pool’s seismic event, that held a large probability of being a result of the shale extraction processes, a temporary ban on hydraulic fragmentation has been placed in the UK. [40]Additionally, apart from the UK and Poland some other member states are now showing interest as well as willingness to join the production of shale gas, a good example would be the beginning of test-drillings within their regions.

[41]Despite this progress towards shale production in the EU, a good number of the member states are highly reluctant towards indulging in shale gas production as a source of energy. Moreover, Bulgaria together with France has initiated an introduction of a moratorium on the extraction of shale gas in regards to the present environmental concerns. North Rhine Westphalia, a German federal state initiated an introduction to a moratorium on hydraulic fragmentation, despite this Germany is a crucial debate towards the approval of production of shale gas. Moreover, Romania and the Czech Republic are both currently in the process of consideration for a moratorium. It is important to note, that these different countries are considering attaining a moratorium for different individual reasons. [42]A discussion is undergoing in the Czech Republic with a signed petition by more than 35,000 individuals. The ministry of environment is currently in consideration to introduce a temporary ban with aim of conducting scientific research on the vast range of impacts of hydraulic fragmentation. In Romania the parliament has initiated a proposal for a moratorium, however, the current Senate of Romania highly rejected the proposal. All in all, presently there are two bills in processing that have the potential to significantly influence the hydraulic fragmentation application within the Parliament of Romania.

[43]A statement has been made profoundly by the European Commission to the EU’s commissioner for Environment; the European Commission has obligation to make sure that the laws of the EU are sufficient in the regulation of the currently new activity of production of shale gas through the utilization of hydraulic fragmentation. Moreover, the European’s Commission opinion on shale gas production through the utilization of the hydraulic fragmentation process has remained neutral with the EU. The next chapter will point out that, shale gas extraction serves as a prevailing business amongst the EU member states, and specifically not within the institutions of the EU. Lastly, the current EU legal environmental framework should have the ability to establish a substantially efficient regulator regime that has competency towards the protection against environmental pollution throughout the EU region.

United States

[44]On the other hand, when compared to the EU, the US is full-on in the production of shale gas. The US has been the reason for the revolution of shale gas production in the last decade. Today, shale gas production takes up up to 20% of the US total production of natural gas production. [45]An estimation has been done for the future growth of shale gas production annually, predicting up to 71% growth by the year 2035. Furthermore, the production of shale gas in the US has brought about a great impact to the current gas market; shale gas production and its growth have caused a substantial drop in prices. The US perceives shale gas production as a source of numerous opportunities to attain minimal dependency on imports in the country as well as security on the necessity of energy sources with the utilization of self-production of shale gas as a form of substitution to fossil fuels, a good example being oil.

[46]The US has discovered shale resources in a significant percentage of its states. More often than not, shale gas production has received minimal resistance and has been welcomed by the states, majorly because of the existing economic benefits that come along with shale production, such as significant job opportunities for the unemployed. Despite this, a great concern has risen and is growing in relation to the environmental pollution that is brought about by shale production. More specifically within the states presently facing a significant amount of environmental degradation. The growing concerns have eventually led to an establishment of moratoria in quite a number of the states.

The growing environmental concerns are not the only influential factors to the future of shale gas production in the US. [47]The boom of production of shale gas in the US has led to a drop in gas prices. Despite the efficiency and technological advancements within the production of shale gas has led to a significant improvement over time, thus leading to reduced production costs, the investors involved in the production of shale gas are having doubts of the recoupment of their investments. Although this concern is particularly economically related, it stands as a problem within the underlying cause of issues of shale gas production and stands as a topic beyond this particular research scope. [48]The probable underlying issues are taken into consideration when the states are making a decision as to whether or not they should undertake a step towards the beginning or expanding shale gas production domestically.

[49]Therefore to effectively comprehend the present energy policies, as well as the support of the production of shale gas in the US, it is necessary to point out that there is an existing desideratum within the policies in the US, towards attaining independency on the energy resources importation. Thus, with this particular strategy to attain minimal dependency on energy resources importation of the Bush administration, the federal government of the US had the introduction of the Energy Policy Act (EPA2005) in the year 2005. [50]The introduced act has effectively supported the energy resources domicile exploitation within the US. The EPA2005 adopted domicile energy production support, there was a partial environmental legislation exclusion for activities in relation to resource exploitation with aim of stimulating the domicile energy resources production, particularly the shale gas in question. Nevertheless, apart from the [51]US government stimulation the evidence of existence of the negative impacts of the production of shale gas, primarily by the media attention, pressure has risen substantially to the introduction of the significantly strict legal regime in concern to shale gas extraction.

CHAPTER 2: The US and the EU Environmental Law

A comparison between the environmental regulatory systems of the US and the US requires the existing differences of both the legal structures to be taken into consideration. The distinct differences between the legal structures of both the EU and the US the implementation of the regulations may be different as well. Therefore, this chapter addresses an overview of the existing processes of environmental lawmaking within the US and the EU.

2.1 EU Environmental Law

[52]The EU has in place three main institutions that are involved in the entire lawmaking process thus forming the legislative power. The EU’s legislative power consists of the European Parliament, the European Commission, and the European Court of Justice. The European Parliament has the authority and power to make necessary amendments proposals for the regulations as well as the directives the European Commission proposed. [53]Within the EU the European Commission stands as the second power. The European Commission has a number of primary tasks, these include initiating proposals for existing environmental legislation of the regulations and directives proposals, the guidance of the member states compliance with the controlling compliance as well as treaties of institutions as well as states with the EU policies. [54]Thus, the European Commission stands to ensure that the law of the EU is correctly applied.The EU’s third power is the European Union Council that the ministers collaborate to form. The primary task of the European Council is establishing priority levels of the EU policies. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) is the EU’s judicial body. The judicial body is authorized to ensure the law of the EU is effectively interpreted as well as applied within the different twenty-seven states.

The three institutions act within set power limits. The limitation of power is all dependent on the (TFEU) Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. In the EU only the TFEU has provided institutions with legislation power authorized for issuance of environmental laws. Therefore, the EU lies in a position of limited power to regulate the environment. The EU’s power in the issuance of environmental regulations is entirely on the basis of an TFEU Article 192. [55]The TFEU Article 191 works with Article 192 to provide the environmental principles which take priority on the European policy-making of the EU. The EU member states are bound to the directives as results are bound to the set targets in directives for the EU member states. The EU has its member states transposed into the system’s national regulation.[56] The regulations in the EU are directly binding. As per the EU system, the member states remain with a certain level of discrete in the path to strive towards achieving targets that are set by directives through the utilization of national legislation. Contradicting the given directives, the set regulations are not compulsory to transposing into the member states of national regulatory systems. [57]In the Eu once a regulation is implemented, it becomes a priority that stands above the member states’ national laws. It is important to note that the EU member states have the chance for a review by the judicial body to approve of the legitimacy of the set regulations as well as the directives that are introduced for implementation. In the EU however, it is uncommon to bring forth a challenge towards the legitimacy of the set regulations as well as directives by the TFEU. Moreover, the EU’s national judges have the authority to request the European Court Justice for an EU law preliminary ruling.

In the EU the European Commission has a primary function of being a watchdog for the EU, together with controlling the implementation of national legislation effective to attain the set objectives set by the directives, as well as ensuring the member states have in place an effective system to enforce the set regulations. [58]The European Commission forms mechanism compliance between the legislation of the member states and the legislation of the EU. A member state that fails to implement regulation of the EU sufficiently and on the given schedule the European Commission can make a decision to give a warning to the member states on any violations or in the case of any form of default to have the state sue before the European Court of Justice.[59] Apart from the Environmental legislation of the EU, the member states have the freedom to establish their own environmental laws pertained they do not come into violation of the EU’s law provisions. Nevertheless, the member states function under specific set conditions to allow the implementation of stringent protective measures within their individual environmental legislation as compared to EU’s legislation.

[60]In concern to the regulations of the EU, both indirectly as well as directly of the importance of production of shale gas, there is a significant point to be noted. The EU as a whole no particular environmental legislation is designed towards regulations of activities involved in the production of shale gas. The EU instead has general portions of the environmental legislation of the EU, together with regulations in mining that are applicable to the activities in concern to the production of shale gas. Due to the complexity of the extraction by utilization of hydraulic fragmentation, a significant amount of regulations and directives of the EU regulate the production of shale gas. Firstly, Hydrocarbons Directives effectively provides a general regulation in concern to hydrocarbons extraction. This particular directive has its focus on the prevention of monopolies on minerals extraction, together with the creation of a fair market for the minerals as well as a directive towards the minerals management by the individual member states. Thus, the directives entail the regulations in concern to the environment as well as the permit procedural processes that are followed by the member states. The second of all, the compulsory environmental impact assessments are highly effective application to the production activities of shale gas. The regulations of the EU on the impact assessments are determined within the Strategic Environmental Assessment as well as the Environmental Impact Assessment directives. Reliant on the various activities of shale production meeting the impact assessment requirements, the member states of the EU stand in obligation to effectively perform particular assessments before beginning any of these activities.[61] Thirdly, the third category of the environmental laws of the EU applicable are in existence of municipals’ environmental directives and regulations which protect as well as cover the particularly substantial ‘ thematic’ portions of the environment; for instance water, air, together with the utilization of chemicals.

2.2 US Environmental Law

The legal structure implemented in the US is significantly different from that in the EU. First of all, the US has embraced the federal-oriented government and therefore has a federal government; whereas the EU is viewed as cooperation’ oriented governance between the twenty-seven different member states of the EU. [62]Moreover, the US has its federal government to have its legislative power limited and controlled by the US constitution. The US constitution has significant power over the environmental laws through its power of protection of all federal lands; thus holding the power to effectively protect the federal lands against activities that will lead to its pollution and destruction. In the US to implement an environmental act or law, the US Congress compulsorily has to hold a preceding through the Senate as well as the House of Representatives. A proposal only becomes a law through the signature of The US president. In the US the federal environmental law entails Congress legislations, otherwise known as statues, laws, acts, rulings by the federal court, agencies’ regulations, executive order by the President; as well as ratified international treaties by Senate of the US. The US president only has the approval to act as per the power entitled to him in the US constitution, and alternatively by the Congress statutes.

[63]The US Congress has the ability to empower federal agencies towards effective regulations on the protection of the environment. Once empowered, they receive authority to efficiently promulgate binding regulations for individual conduct. The federal agencies that are concerned with US’ environmental legislation are the US Council on Environmental Quality, as the Environmental Protection Agency. The primary legislated mission of the Environmental Protection Agency is to thrive towards environmental protection, and human health as well. Moreover, it is obliged by the environmental federal acts to administer regulations for the environment, and together with the executive agency set the minimum required standards for the environment, as well as the requirements to be met by the individual state governments.

[64]Apart from the federal and US constitution, each individual state within the US has its own set state constitution as well as environmental laws. More often than not individual state laws do not contradict the set federal laws. Moreover, the federal laws are implemented within the state laws through the fact that they have to pass approval by the federal agencies. In the occurrence that a particular state law contradicts federal law, the federal law thus supersedes the set state law. Each state within the US has its own set environmental laws that implement the environmental regulations legislated federally.

[65]It is therefore crucial to address the issue of the conflicts that may arise between the US State laws and the US federal laws. It is absurdly normal to have the state laws and the federal laws contradicting each other in the US. Therefore, the Supreme Court in the US has the power to test the legitimacy of the federal law as per the provisions set in the US constitution. Thus, in the case that a state claims that a certain federal law is incompliant with the present US constitution, the US Supreme Court has the power to test the law in question on the legitimacy as per the US constitution. Although it highly common and convenient in the US to bring forth litigation on state law or a federal law legitimacy, the EU has this occurrence as a less likely occurrence and it is also perceived as a highly complex issue to pursue in the EU. The federal regulations in the US hold a highly sensitive topic; the strict limitations to land owned privately. Environment regulations in the US in the past consisted of direct and indirect limitations to private land ownership has faced a significant level of challenges.

[66]In the mid 1970s, the US federal government effectively introduced and implemented a set of federal legislated environmental regulations. Similarly to the US, the EU holds a sizeable federal legislation on the production of shale gas that is applicable. [67]The US applicable legislation entails inter alia; the (CAA) Clean Air Act, (CWA) Clean Water Act, (NEPA) National Environmental Policy Act, (SDWA) Safe Drinking Water Act, and the ( EPCRA) Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act. It is clear that the production of shale gal is in the exemption of quite a number of the federal environmental acts, thus the individual states hold a firm position towards the regulation of production of shale gas within their jurisdiction. A crucial point is that the US states have the freedom to adopt more than one stringent formed regulations in addition to the established environmental regulation, such as the Acts mentioned.

2.3 Which Is Preferable, EU And Federal Law Or Member State Regulation?

[68]A debate rampages on in the US and the EU on a matter of opinions that differ substantially on two sides, one questions whether environmental legislation centrally harmonized or State as well as regional level legislation stands as more competent towards effectively protecting the environment against any form of pollution caused by the production of shale gas. In the US particularly a great challenge emerged as a result of their history in the protection of the environment against the negative effects of the production of shale gas. A good example being the vastly varying laws in quite a number of states that exist on the disclosure of chemicals. The chemical disclosure that occurs in the production of the shale gas industry is unregulated within a federal level, thus presently remains only in regulation by the state laws. Therefore, resulting in diverging regulations throughout the US states. In the US a number of states have introduced proficient regulation. [69]Whereas within other states the important disclosure regulations are missing, or are otherwise ineffective regulations.

The federal regulations set out a minimum level of the standards as well as requirements that could enable prevention against these types of problems. Despite, the EU not sharing a similar level of experience with the implementations of the environmental laws towards the protection of the environment against the production of shale gas with the US, the EU has opinions that stand divergent on the EU level, advantages as well as disadvantages of the environmental laws.

Generally, the US holds a significant preference for the remaining portion of the state primacy in concern to environmental regulations, besides federal level legislation. The primary thought behind this particular preference entails of inter alia of the states wish to adopt as well as govern their individual environmental policies, taking into consideration the social and the economic concerns within the regional or state level, together with the capability to attain efficiently quick as well as adaptive responsive levels about the environmental issues. Amongst the constantly repeated advantages are public involvement at the regional level, customized as well as efficient local level environmental regulations. [70]Particular divergent issues in concern to the state local environments are continually prevailingly for regulation by the state governments. Whereas, environmental pollution characteristically, particularly shale gas production resultant, remains unbounded by jurisdiction and the state borders. Centrally leveled governments have the ability towards implementation of a substantially holistic regulatory framework utilized for an individual state, thus avoiding environmental legislatory issues at a cross-border level. [71]The EU as well as Federal legislation brings harmony of the environmental laws right through across state borders; thus ensuringa minimum level of requirements and protection from both opposite border sides and preventing environmental pollution from the individual member states from the existing loopholes and gaps. The federal law, together with the EU law have the ability to effectively regulate the ‘migratory resources’, for instance, the migration of water that is contaminated and pollution of the air, the common issues in cross border cases brought by the production of shale gas through the process of hydraulic fragmentation. However, the contra-argumentation can be perceived as per the present differences that exist in the production methods, as well as, the geographical areas that has extraction site for production of shale gas. Within the individual states the local authorities may hold a substantial ability to ‘tailor’ legislation to fit the current local situation and circumstances taking into account the local factors the federal law takes account of. Moreover, the ‘tailored’ laws may be efficiently introduced at the top of the EU law and even the federal,establishing a minimum level of the requirements as well as regulations.

[72]The federal and EU environmental legislation are easy for the states to adopt. States may prefer to substantially strengthen their individual state environmental laws to fit in to the stands level they perceive essential to achieve an efficient level ofenvironmental protection. Presently, the US federal legislation are facing several challenges with the establishment of a minimum level of standards as well as environmental regulations, that may result to the US fifty states entirely across the region to have a vast range in variety of environmental legislation in concern to production of shale gas. [73]A significant negative factor of the federal and the EU environmental lawsis the presentlycostly as well as extensive studies necessary for the sufficiency in designing federal environmental regulations. The federal regulations costs are more likely greater than the local level regulations; thus legislation must be designed to be appropriateacross all the states. Nevertheless, the federal studies occasionallyhave an overlapping of the local or the state studies, possibly resulting in the doubling of costs. Moreover, the federal studies prove to be substantially time consuming more than state authoritiesprocesses. However, it is not predictable to purpose that the EU or even the federalstudies become substantially costly when compared to the local governments costs combined. More related are necessary for scrutiny of these existing uncertainties.

Presently quite a few number of states have effectively implemented a strict environmental regime, whereas the larger number of states have in place anenvironmental protection of a lower level.[74] The individual member states face significant difficulty and strain to balance interest in decision making on whether or not they are introduced an environmental protection at a great level, or in stimulating an economy through shale gas production. Thus introduction of the ‘tragedy of commons’, described as a statesself-interest in a short term level, besides the whole country’s interest. [75]Furthermore the EU and Federal governments probably set up substantially competent institutions towards the overseeing of the member states self-interest, as well as, considering the whole country’s interest within their decision-making and legislation processes. Whereas, the central policies consequently face similar issues on a larger scale level. Nevertheless, it is illustrative that a probable collision of the EU or the federal targets and priorities. For instance: the federal government of the US in regards to the level of energy independency, while it balances with environmental protection. Introducing the EPA2005 stands a real portrayal of the level of prioritization of energy dependency substantially above the protection of the environment against any form of pollution.

A strong lobbyism within the industry is yet another added advantage of the EU and the federal environmental regulations. More particularly within a state as well as regional level, authorities ratio may substantially be influenced by the powerful industries. The EU and the federal governments may be expected to remain substantially less sensitive towards the pressure received from the industries. [76]The EU and the Federal EU law have more ability to approach with a holistic approach taken into consideration, thus may have the ability to discover a sufficient balance between the environmental as well as economic concerns as compared to the state and local authorities do. The federal and the EU environmental laws prevent the member states from presuming a ‘race-to-the-bottom’ effect. [77]An effect is based on the idea that there will rise a competition between the member states with aim of making the industry’s attractive regulatory systems, thus consequently resulting in a decision making with a substantial prioritization above the existing environmental concerns for economic incentives; thus leading to the environmental regulation degradation.

[78]Contra argumentations are seen by some of the local legislators having a tendency to enable adoption of broad policy aims and goals; as well as their willingness to efficiently ensure the protection of the environment within the individual local regions. The implementation of federal legislation at times leads to avoidable double coverage as well as errors within the correct procedure of implementation. [79]Nevertheless, amongst other states that are substantially considered the weak environmental protection system, which might be beneficial and enable saving significant expenses from the federal and the EU government set environmental frameworks.

Within the recent past decades, technological enhancement has proven that natural resource extraction has the capability to develop significantly and at a rapid rate. In cases where the state and local governments are facing challenges in the adoption of efficient legislation towards the continuation of the change and developments in technology, federal and central regulation has the ability to ensure supplying to recent legislation within the whole country, to all states. Nevertheless, the change of legislation and standards may cause negative effects within the extraction industry. [80]Environmental legislations within a federal level leads to the establishment of additional burden and obstacles for producers of shale gas to comply with. The total costs will substantially increase, together with the risks that are associated with the issues of liability are great industry demerits. Moreover, the federal or EU environmental legislation sets a minimum level of requirements and standards for effective environmental regulation throughout the region. [81]With the existence of a set minimum level of standards put in place there is a guarantee of minimal environmental protection. The member states have the ability to tailor any additional legislations, if necessary. Despite the final decision of the member states in regards to the introduction of essential environmental, the legislation at a federal level in this instance will establish a minimum level of environmental protection.

Therefore, as mentioned in the research outline, in the situation of environmental regulation in regards to the production of shale gas, the advantages and benefits of the EU legislation and the US federal remain dominant. Thus, with the presence of a set framework entailing the minimum level of requirements and standards that are provided by EU and federal legislation, environmental protection within a set minimum level is given assurance throughout the whole country. [82]Furthermore, with the presence of set environmental minimum level standards, both the federal as well as EU legislators tend to create a leveled platform for the energy industry, within each member state having a similar set environmental minimum level of protection guaranteed. The member states will have in place the present authorization that makes decisions on whether or not the state wants the introduction of a substantially stricter environmental legislation, as well as the amount of influence that will affect the as a ‘competitor’. [83]Particularly, in regards to shale gas production the federal and the EU law should have prevalence over state law. Not to mention that with the level of potential to indulge and begin production based on short terms in the different countries having varying quality levels of the environmental laws, the rapidly developing production of shale gas as well as the growing pressure towards extraction of shale gas in the states, firm and strong EU and federal environmental laws substantially decisive to enable a significant environmental protection level.

CHAPTER 3: Shale Production Legislation in the US and the EU

A particular number of regulations as well as directives within the EU, together the andUS Acts are substantially applicable to activities concerned with environment protection against the negative effects of the production of shale gas. As mention earlier, there is no US federal or EU law legislation that is specifically designed towards environmental protection against pollution due to shale gas production. This chapter will first address the complications that arise with the extraction of minerals right in both the EU and the US. It, therefore, brings forth an overview of the present USA as well as the EU applicable environmental regulations. The chapter addresses a critical examination of the directives, regulations as well as acts that extend to the individual states to enable deviation from the provisioning of the regulations given by the US federal and the EU legislation. Moreover, the chapter addresses and brings to the comparison of the competency level of both the federal US and the EU legislation towards environmental protection against the pollution effects that arise from indulging in the production of shale gas.

3.1 Natural Resources Extraction

A major issue in mineral resource production in both the US and the EU is the factor of natural resources ownership as well as the eligibility of the member states in choosing and producing their preferred energy-mix source. [84]The significant differences between the regulatory systems of the US and the EU are seen clearly in this scope. Therefore the elaboration of the regulations that exist on land ownership, as well as extract right with the minerals land-related.

3.1.1 The Right to Natural Resources Extraction in the EU

There is a ‘shared competence’ in the EU and the member states in the implementation of measures towards environmental protection. The presence of shared competence ensures that both the EU as well as the member state institutions may lead to the adoption of legislation.[85]Moreover, the member states have a distinct level of discretion to the composing of their individual energy mix sources and in the decision making of whether or not the extraction of mineral resources will be in accordance with the principle EU legislation which may not result in the definition as per this discretion. The other crucial note is that the larger number of the member states in the EU the minerals are in states ownership and ownership of landowners. Apart from the EU states ownership as the EU institution which does not have ownership of minerals and land in the EU.

[86]As per the TFEU Article 194 (2), the EU member states have the freedom to set up the permit requirements for shale gas exploitation. However, an exemption arises in regards to this discretion, this is the establishment of TFEU’ s Article 192 (2) (c). The EU council according to thisarticle have the authorization, in acting unanimously as well as after parliament revision, the adoption of the environmental legislation which significantly affects a state’s choice their energy mix. [87]Moreover, theEU member states that principal sovereignty in the decision making to decide n whether or not they indulge in extraction of natural resources, as well as choosing their own preferences in energy mix. Thus the EU environmental legislation stands as binding towards related activities, as well as, set requirements to be complied by all interested operators. Therefore, the EU member states have the freedom of decision making in regards to whether or not they will exploit and utilize their shale gas resources as per compliance to the set EU environmental law.

3.1.2. The Right to Extract Natural Resources in the US

Whereas in the EU the individual member states are the owners to the minerals, shale gas included; in the US it is different. The landowners are the ones with ownership to the in their land in the US. Therefore, in the US the landowners are privileged with the right to mineral extraction beneath their lands. Apart from the private land ownership, the US federal government is in ownership of land in a large scale basis inclusive of the minerals.

[88]As per shale gas production more often than not the landowners sign contracts with extraction companies. Therefore, the landownersprofits rely on the royalty payments received from the company extracting minerals within their land. Thus, with private ownership in place a comparison arises with the EU where the EU two actors in place with extraction of minerals, the EU governments and extracting companies. Whereas in the US three actors come together in minerals extraction, the US state governments, the landowners as well as the minerals extracting companies.[89] Shale gas production has proven to be substantially lucrative. Moreover is creates incentives for the landowners to maintain and increase positivity in their attitudes and approaches to the shale gas production processes. In comparison to the landowners in the US, the EU citizens do not benefit from compensation when their lands are utilized for mineral extraction, such as shale gas, thus leading a high level of resilience against production of shale gas.

In the US the State law brings forth regulations towards shale gas production on the non-federal lands. Therefore, each individual state effectively establishes a policy that ensures payment of royalties, as well as development of self-regulation and the natural resources extraction licensing programme.In accordance to the US federal lands, the US Constitution tends to allow and approve of the federal government to effectively work towards the protection of federal lands as well as the prevention of the federal lands against pollution resulting activities, thus allowing them to indulge in the adoption of federal acts in order to efficiently protect the federal lands.

3.2. US: Energy Policy Act 2005 (EPA2005)

[90]In order to comprehend the applicability of the US environmental law, learning about the EPA2005Act is essential. Through the EPA2005, the US federal government enables the implementation of a regime that supports production of the domicilein the US. Therefore from the year 2005, The US has the EPA2005Act in place as the primary act in regulation of production of energy. Introduction of the EPA2005 was to ensure regulation of issues such as the country’sgrowth in the economy, energy security as well as quality of the environmental basis.Furthermore, the EPA2005 enablesthe regulationof a vast range of the energy related topics, these include; efficiency in energy, production of gas and oil, tax incentives, electricity, hydropower, geothermal energy as well as energy savings.The EPA2005 affects a number of federal environmental regulations.

3.3 Permits and Authorizations

The permit procedure is the first stage of shale gas production, thus allowing extracting companies to begin the production of shale gas processes.The authorizing of issued permits, enables states to have the chance to take into account the environment in making their decision, and the states have the gap to allow them to indulge in adoption of permit requirements in environment protection against any form of environmental pollution by having in place a set of conditions by which operators are in compliance with.

3.3.1 The EU Permits for Production of Shale Gas

[91]In accordance to the member state discretion towards minerals extractions, authorisationstogether with permits are issues. The member states are discrete to enable the authorities to issue the necessary licenses as well as permits for shale gas production. [92]Thus, leading towards the probability of the EU regulations where the different individualmember states generally do not sharethe similar authorities that issuepermits and the authorization for production of shale gas; and the different member states authoritiesdeal with the granting of authorisations.

The Hydrocarbons Directive is the directive that refers the directive thatis concerned with the authorizing, issuance as well as the monitoring of shale gas extraction permits. This particulardirective has its focus on all the essential principles and the procedures which are accompanied by authorities. The Hydrocarbons Directive enables prohibition of any form of discrimination that may be present between entities in regard to the access to activities involved in extraction.

In concern to the Hydrocarbon Directive application as per consideration of environmental protection against pollution brought about by production of shale gas, neither focuseson environmental protection nor to the minimum standards levels presented in the directive. Despite Hydrocarbon Directive not particularly objected towards the protection of the environment, it is concerned with the environment.However, ‘the environment’ is not considered as a mandatory requirement for the EU member states as the states are discrete in making their decisions considering the environment in the permits issuing for hydraulic fragmentation.

EU Legislation Findings:

In the EU the member states are left with discretion through the Hydrocarbons Directive to issue the production for shale gas licenses.[93] Thus, the member states are discrete in making of their decisions in permit issuance. Therefore, power remains in the hands of the state authorities to put into consideration the environment in the process of making their decisions. With the presence of this discretion there is a path paved foran interpretational difference gaps, as well as, distinct differences in considering the environment in the process of the permit procedures which occur between the member states. In concern to shale gas production, the Hydrocarbons Directivehas established no additional threshold in relation to the environmental consideration that are existing in permitting the procedure of the individual member states authorities.

3.3.2. The US Permits for Production of Shale Gas

The individual state governments have the authority to permits issuance towards the national resources exploration. More often than not, the central state government has the assistance of the regional authorities in the permits issuing within the lower levels. [94]A number of the states presently support the issuance of the regional level authorizations, but others hold preference in havingissuance of the necessary permits and the state government has authorizations centralized.Moreover presently, with the economical impacts with the vast range of the negative effects particularly on the environment caused by the process of extraction of shale gas, a certain trend is rising that entails of the removal of authorization within the municipal levels, towards more state level centralized institutions is clear.

Most of the states mining authorities have the responsibility of permit issuing towards shale extraction. [95]Compliance of the permits are in accordance to the individual state’s environmental statutes. When the local communities have their local environmental regulations not in alignment the state law, the regulations will be superseded by the state laws. With the growth and rise in production of shale gas in the US in the past ten years alone, a number of states, authorities as well as regulators face overwhelming numbers of permit applications, and are facing issues handling the applications. Question arises as to whether the authorities have the capabilities to effectively handle the overwhelming amount of increasing pressure, and at the same time manage the maintenance of an appropriateprocess of decision-making process as well as an control efficient compliance control on the environmental regulations.

Finding US legislation:

[96]In the US all the states have entitlement to establishment their own authorities concerning the issuance of permits and authorizations for the exploitation of shale gas. In the US there is no present federal legislation is currently applicable, as well asthe federal regulation harmonizing in the process of decision-making the permit issuance for the private landowners. The privately owned lands have the mining as well as the environmental state lawsare applicable. In accordance to shale gas production within the federal lands, however the National Environmental Policy Act is applicable. Therefore, no particular federal regulation refers to the consideration of the environment in the procedure of permit processing forproduction of shale gas on private lands.

Conclusion to the comparison of environmental consideration in both the US and the EU legislation in permit processing procedure:

[97]The EU member states have no firm stand on whether or not it takesinto consideration the environment in the process of decision making process towards issuing permits for production of shale gas, the EU legislationmentions the environment, in the Hydrocarbons Directive. Whereas in the US has no federal regulation in place that is applicable on the process of decision making for the state governments issued permits. On the basis on the examination of legislation, the states make the decision without having federal guidelines in place, to determine whether or not the individual states take into consideration the environment within the process of decision making. [98]Thus leaving an inconclusive platform on towards which system between the EU and the US offers significantly a substantially protection system in comparison of the other. Nevertheless, both the US and the EU regimes do not have a mention of the environmental consideration within the processes related to permit-procedures. [99]At least the EU has the Hydrocarbons Directive in place that refers to the environment.

3.4 Impact Assessments

The primary requirement to comply to before indulging in production of shale gas is analyzing impact assessments. An impact assessment is defined as a procedure which is implemented by the prevention principle; this involves a preventive action that should be undertaken before establishment of a project that may have harmful effects to the environment. Effective assessmentof the production of shale gas environmental impacts, before issuing permits, parties may consider obligation to effectively perform thorough assessments. Thus in the EU there are two forms of the existing Environmental Impact Assessment; the first is the Strategic Environmental Impact Assessment, while the second is the Environmental Impact assessment. Whereas the National Environmental Policy Act in the US is the primary regulation in concern to the environmental impact assessments.

3.4.1. The European Union Environmental Impact Assessments

(SEA) – Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive

[100]The SEA presents the implementation of the idea that during the planning stage takes in consideration the environment impacts, before adoption of the plans.The SEA Directive entails in terms of subjective programs as well as plans a set criteria list which determines the subjected activities. The broadness of the list tends to place the production of shale gaswithin its scope in the SEA. [101]Moreover, small scale production areas may be in exemption of the SEA due to its accumulative effects as a small scale production and extraction sites which may not be taken into consideration as a probability to have a great environmental effect. In a case where activities are not in subjection to mandatory SEA procedures tends not to exempt in an EIA mandatory performance. Execution of a SEA is done at a screening stage within the set planning program which allows the plan adoption. The EIA however when compared to the SEA needs listing of the potential alternatives, whereas this is not a set EIA requirement, and efficiency in the quality level of environmental reports.

(EIA) – Environmental impact assessment Directive

The EIA ensure assessment of the total accumulative effects that are probable to occur in a project to cause environmental pollution and harm. The EIA results are taken into obligation after the authorities taking into considerationin their processes of decision-making in the permit issuing for extraction of shale gas. [102]The member states have a particular level of discretion inthe introduction of requirements and thresholds for the EIA performance. It is essential to point out that EIA is not a compulsory project requirement, where the member states national laws have in place regulation details. [103]Nevertheless, is it due to the most recent technique developmentsin hydraulic fragmentation which is unlikely for member states to have already established implementation with sufficient regulation on the assessing of the activities involved in production of shale gas.

Finding EU legislation:

The member states majorly make decisions on whether the production of shale gas will stand as a potential harm inflictor to the environment; and also whether the particular case has an obligation to the requirement of SEA’s performance. [104]The member state that discretion to probable results within the vast range of distinct benchmarks between the individual member states, whether they are in requirement of SEA’s performance. The member states are discrete towards the process of decision making to choose whether or not to place an EIA in requirements, particularly when the site for production does not exceed gas of 500 tonnesdaily. Especially because of the uncertainity of production of shale gas at 500 tonnes daily.In the case where the member state could not make the decisionto have EIA performance as a requirement, especially in cases of extraction projects at a small scale basis the member state can make the decision through case-by-case examination; as well as settingcriteriaof when the EIA is necessary. Moreover, deviating in the criteria chosen for the performances of EIA may arise when the individual member states make approval to set requirements.

3.4.2 The United States Environmental Impact Assessments

(NEPA) – National Environmental Policy Act

The US has NEPA in the primary federal acts in concern to the environmental impacts assessment of environmental impacts. [105]NEPA’s aim is the obligation of all government branches to take into consideration the environmental effects in their plans,thus ensuring substantial environmental considerations in the process decision making for the federal level of the palns as well as actions. The US has (CEQ) federal Council for Environmental Quality in NEPA’s overseeing. Additionally, NEPA is in requirement to overviewing the impacts of the federal actions, and even make public comments from the citizens. This particular requirement ensures transparency as well as environmental considerations balance in the federal processes of decision-making, this includes indulging in shale gas production.

Findings US legislation:

The US states hold their right to make determination on whether or not the environmental impact assessment performance is essential. [106]There is no minimum levels of standards as well as provisions on the impact assessments which federal legislation provides to enable gas resources extraction particularly in the privately owned lands. Within one state to another there is variations in whether or not there is a requirement for an impact assessment. The examining of NEPA stands only as a requirement for the activities federally legislated. NEPA excludes production of shale gas by the EPA2005 Act, therefore the federal agencies are not in mandatory position to execute the necessary environmental assessment when beginning to indulge in activities involved in production of shale gas.

Findings Comparisons in Impact Assessments in the EU and the US Legislation

An EIA as a requirement enables assurance inthe environmental considerations which are taken intoconsideration for the state authorities process of decision-making processes before approval of the production of shale gas. [107]Even with the SEA as well as EIA directives are in concern with the harmonizing of the impact assessments amongst the member states, thus enable member sates to derogate from the presented provisions. The US has limited the federal activities as well as plans by the agencies tend to fall within NEPA’s scope. Therefore, NEPA provisionsstand as not binding to the private landowners as well as the individual states plans. Apart from the EPA2005, the federal plans to indulge in the production of shale gas stand not bounded by NEPA. The EIA and the SIA in the EU have the establishment of a substantially more coherent set law framework particularly on the environmental assessment amongst the EU member states when compared to the US.

3.5. Regulations of Air Quality and Emissions

[108]The installations formed by emissions as well as the rigs at the sites of shale extraction and production sites, and even the traffic associated to production of shale gas, thus the quality of air as well as regulations of industrial emissions are crucial to production of shale gas through hydraulic fragmentation. [109]Therefore, the EU law together with the US federal laws have set basic requirements to ensure air quality as well as leveled standards for the machinery and the instruments utilized in production of shale gas.

3.5.1. The European Union of Air Quality and Emission Regulation

(IED) – Industrial Emissions Directive

The establishment of the IED is to enable integration of the diverse approaches towards preventing as well as controlling the vast forms of industrial emissions. The IED’s primary objective is the implementation of holistic approach towards environmental protection against pollution; apart from the individual sectors all the environment’s sectors are taken into consideration when emissions permits are issued. In regards to production of shale gas the IED entails air emissions regulations, together with the wastewatersemissions results of hydraulic fragmentation.

[110]Targeted achievements are obtained by the IED through the utilization of issued emission permits by the individual member states; particularly in the mandatory environmental conditions which consists of permits that some state authorities which may allow a certain level of emissions. A vital IED feature is the implementing of the (BAT) Best Available Techniques principle.

(AAQ)- Air Quality Framework Directive

[111]The AAQenables establishment of a set framework on the regulations on air quality in the EU. The primary objective of the AAQ is the establishment of commonly utilised methods as well as criteriawithin all the individual states of the EU, to efficiently maintain and assess the air quality, promotion of air pollution reduction, together with establishment of objectives towards prevention of environment and the human health against the negative impacts of exposure to bad air quality.

Findings EU legislation:

[112]The production of shale gas is limitedly addressed by IED in instances of air-emissions which reach the strains of the IED as well as the waste waters that are resultant of the process of hydraulic fragmentation, otherwise known as ‘Hazardous Waste’. Nevertheless, the IED has a significant cover on the activities related to the production of shale gas, the IED is objectively sets out to ensure an efficient regulation throughout the EU. Furthermore, in the EU the AAQ has seta framework of minimum level of standards of requirements to attain air quality. Moreover, the AAQ has not set up expected standards for the individualshale gas extraction sites, hence; it is indirectly resulting in the additional necessary requirements for production of shale gas.

3.5.2 The United States Air Quality and Emission Regulation

(CAA)- Clean Air Act

The CAA is described by the federal law regulations of the air emissions. Moreover its establishment was to enhance the protection of the public welfare as well as health against air pollution. [113]In accordance to the CAA ,the EPA has the requirement to set establishment of limitations to air pollution throughout the whole country. Therefore the States as well as the local governments are to be in compliance with the set limitations so as to attain monitoring of the air quality together with the inspection of the extraction and production industries.

Findings US legislation:

In accordance to the CAA, the EPA holds a crucial role in the regulations of emissions by the shale gas production sites. Setting minimum levels of standards for equipment to be utilized in hydraulic fragmentation processes with a federal level, thus the regulatory regime stands applicable throughout the individual states. Since the CAA itself is not directly placed in the emissions regulations from te production of shale gas, particularly because it is limited to setting goals towards achieving air quality.

Findings comparison of air emissions in theEU & US legislation

[114]The IED directive stands as a highly effective tool in the regulations of pollutant emissions in the air, particularly by industries. For the IED to have effect, the overall sum of the environmental pollution pollutants have to be considered; moreover it is clear whether all the shale gas production site will reach the required thresholds of the IED directive. Ensuring IED applicability, the production of shale gas should be added to IED annex. [115]The AAQ has no direct regulation of production of shale gas, through the AAQ the member state have the requirement towards maintaining a particular set air quality. Moreover, hydraulic fragmentation caused missions hamper the individual member states towards achievement of their set targets under the AAQ directive; thus indirectly portraying its importance to production of shale gas.

3.6. Regulation on Water

The large amount of impact on our environment. Sometimes I find myself moving from the city and take a walk in the countryside where we have trees and fresh water utilized in the hydraulic fragmentation processes environmental regulation on water thus becomes critical towards achieving and attaining an effective environmental protection system in place against the pollution resulting from processes in the production of shale gas. [116]First of all, the underground water injection, with water entailing ‘fracking’-fluids, together with the wastewaters injection that results from the process of hydraulic fragmentation which is in high probabilities towards contamination of groundwater resources. Secondly, the large wastewaters amounts as well as the storm waters that result from the process of extraction are significantly hazardous pollutants to the surface waters. In both the USand the EU there are extensive regulations on the earth’s surface, as well as the groundeffects of company privatization in productivity growth and performance output. This article discusses about the waters are in regulation of the standards of water as well as the controlling the waste waters discharge.

3.6.1.The EURegulation on Water

(WFD) – Water-framework Directive

The WFD basically brings forth the requirement through national legislation within all the member state, which enables the protection of all the regions upon which lakes, rivers as well as streams flow. The WFD clearly mentions three particular sources and regions of organizational culture according to Deiser, R. (2009p.229) is derived from people who created it. At price water; these are groundwater, surface water, as well aswater within protected areas. [117]In accordance to the WFD the member states are obligated to the implementation of the necessary and most basic measures within national legislation. This refer to particular measures which establishesthe minimum requirements in standards of water quality. Furthermore, the WFD brings forwards the requirement of national legislation designing to accommodate the WFD general objectives being achieved throughout all the member state of the EU.

(MWD)- Mining Waste Directive

The MWD entails of the responsibility of mine wastes caretaking through the requirements of a management plans that areconveniently drawn by the associated operators standing as a precondition to attain a permit to indulge in production of shale gas. [118]Permits that are set for the storage of mining wastes, for instance, the wastewaters derived from the processes involved in hydraulic fragmentation are issued before beginning any stage of activities in extraction as well as production. Therefore, the MWD is objected towards the prevention of the environment against pollution caused by mining wastes. Since the waste wasters are resulting waste products from the process of extraction, the MWD stands applicable particularly because of the waste waters retrieved from the process of hydraulic fragmentation.

(DWD)- Drinking Water Directive

In accordance to DWD , there is establishments of chemical parameters for the water resources. The water utilized in as well as that that results from the process of hydraulic fragmentation has a high probability of contaminating the drinking water resources. [119]The primary objectives set by the DWD is the protection of drinking water to efficiently ensure maintenance of the a status for drinking water which is healthy, tasty and clean. Achieving this objective DWD has set minimum levels set standards for the components that may be present in drinking water. The member statesare prohibited from implementation of lower standards within their individual national legislation, however they are free to have introduction of greater levels of standards.

(GWD)- Groundwater directive

The GWD provides an effective system of regulation on protection of groundwater against pollution by hazardous substances. The GWD has a requirement for implementation of set measures towards the prevention as well as limitation of groundwater pollution by the member states. In accordance to the GWD the member states are in obligation towards monitoring and protecting their individual groundwater resources. The GWD has in place two different ways of discharging which are categorized into ‘indirect’ and ‘direct’ discharging. The direct discharging involves substance insertion into the groundwater without necessarily having percolation underground. Whereas indirect discharging defines the groundwater contamination after exposure to percolation. With the risks involved in indirect discharging, investigations are carried out and national authorities authorizes may then consider authorisation for the substances discharging.

Findings EU legislation:

The production of shale gas they have the member states approving to the wastewater injections. Nevertheless, the waste waters injection may contain ‘fracking’-fluids which is highly in restriction by the diverse EU water-directives. The DWD gives no approval to derogations of any form apart from those considered ‘exceptional circumstances’, although it is a rare occurrence for production of shale gas to be in qualification as a will most likely be placed as ‘planned activity’.Therefore, as per principle no production of shale gas can be indulged in the DWD protected regions.

3.6.2. United States Regulation on Water

(SWDA)- Safe Water Drinking Act

The SWDA pertains of set health associated standards in accordance to drinking water quality in the US. The EPA through the SWDA authorizes a set of minimum level of requirements. [120]Therefore the EPA is in charge of setting the nationwide standards for the water treatments requirements as well as the quality of tap water. In accordance to the SWDA, the state governments are given approval to implementation of a stricter level of standards as compared to those EPA set standards..

(CWA)- Clean Water Act

The CWA enables the prohibition against discharging wastewaters into the water bodies. The CWA has the primary objective towards the prevention of water resources against water runoffs, otherwise known as storm waters that are released during the process of hydraulic fragmentation. [121]The CWA works towards controlling of the level of releases into the water bodies through an existing system known as ‘point sources’. The point sources are limited only to those state authorities wastewaters release, therefore this particular system ensure an efficient control as well as maintenance of water against pollution.

Findings US legislation:

Both the SWDA and the CWA are put in place nationally with national set standards as well as minimum set requirements for the level of water quality. Therefore both of the regulations are implemented through administration of control-systems through the EPA. At first sight this seems to be an effective method to set minimum standards for water quality at federal level.

Findings comparison EU and US legislation

[122]Even with the EU’s substantially extensive legal framework in place of on water; including the protection of the water bodies against pollution from shale gas production stands majorly under the individually set regulations by the member state. The GWD together with the DWD work towards supporting the WFD in the establishment of the minimum setstandards in the EU. The member states that the freedom to make their decisions towards approving of underground injections as well as other shale gas production associated pollutions pertained that the set levels of standards are achieved with the minimum standards as per the EU directives implementation.[123]The US on the other hand has the CWA in place to ensure monitoring of the surface water level of discharges. Moreover, the SWDA empowers the EPA to have in place nationally set minimum levels of standards as well as indirect regulation of the pollution caused by the the processes associated with extraction of shale gas extraction. Therefore in this case the EU has in place a system that is significantly binding as compared to the US towards protection of the environment.

3.7. Regulation on chemicals

In the production of shale gas through the utilization of hydraulic fragmentation chemicals are a critical component to the entire extraction process. Disclosure is the major issue in relation to the utilization of chemicals in the process. However, disclosure is highly necessary for vast purposes in the case of chemical released in the environment.

3.7.1. European Union Regulation on Chemicals

(REACH) – Registration Evaluation AuthorizationAnd Restriction Of Chemicals

REACH is serves a stronghold in the EU legislation of laws in concern to chemicals. [124]Therefore REACH is effectively applicable to all the substances, thus is in requirement registration of all substances before hand so as approve their existence in the EU market in the EU. Moreover, REACH primary objective is to gather the necessary technical information on chemical substances through utilization of the technical dossiers of every substance inclusive of the data available as well as the details. Thus, REACH is focused towards establishment of a firm and effective system to ensure enclosure of all the chemicals utilized in the process of shale gas extraction.

Findings EU legislation:

[125]REACH stands as directly binding for the EU member state regulation. Particularly because Reach is a legislated regulation of the EU. Therefore, it entails of minimal possibilities in regards to the diverse interpretations as well as implementation by the individual member states.[126] In accordance to the chemicals utilized in shale gas production, REACH establishes two vital facets. Firstly,the chemicals utilised in hydraulic fragmentation process are listed and documented by the ECA. Second of all, all the associated the operators are to be educated in awareness of potential the risks as well as the chemical, and are thus obligated to undertake the necessary measures towards ensuringcontrol towards the risks in relation to human health together with the environment.

3.7.2. The United States Regulation on Chemicals

[127]The US presently are limited to state law regulation on chemicals disclosure, particularly because no federal act have provided regulation towards this specific issue. Therefore the regulations put in place are highly diverse and are defined as per the different states and their state laws as well as regulations. Upon which some of the states are in requirement of the chemicals disclosure utilized in shale gas extraction, whereas others states do not have this as a requirement in place.

(FRAC)- Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness ofChemicals Act

[128]The growing concern of the chemicals utilized in the processes of shale production , FRAC act is proposed and is presently pending at the US Congress. Nevertheless, FRAC entails of inter alia amendments of the SWDA presently in existence.

(EPCRA) – Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act

The EPCRA present the provisions of federal as well as state government legislated regulations with aim of providing the public with access to vast and diverse information of chemicals that are released into the environment with the shale extraction processes. Moreove the EPCRA has the requirement of parties that will release, store or utilize hazardous chemicals, mandatory have to make a report on their activities. The information gives a detailed report which provides data on all the utilized chemicals, as well as their effects on the health of both the public and the environment.

Findings US legislation:

FRAC-act introduction leads to effective monitoring as well as establishment of an indepth review of the chemicals usage in the US. Further it provides sufficient access to data on the chemical necessary for stakeholders in occurrences of emergencies. FRAC has brought forward a more organised, federal ‘disclosure’-system to be planned for establishment. The US however have not approved of FRAC for implementation. Therefore each state has its own set regulations in place.

Findings Comparison EU &US Regulation on Chemicals

REACH is an EUregulation, that is effectively implemented and directly applicable to all its member states. The parties involved in the production of shale gas are thus in compliance with REACH.Apart from the enforcements as well as scheduling of REACH implementation , the EU member states are in no position to derogate from REACH and its requirements particularly because REACH stands as directly binding. Whereas the US, is in the process of waiting for approval for implementation of FRAC to establish an effective federal regulation obligating the producers of shale gas to have an in depth report of the utilization of chemicals and creating chemical data access.[129] The ERCRA however has excluded the production of shale gas from its requirements in regards to environmental regulations. Therefore with the lack of federal regulation in place, and being limited to state regulations in applicability, it paves way to establishments of a substantially weak federal regime in place on the utilization as well as disclosure of chemicals. Thus, resulting in divergent state regulations in regards to the utilization as well as the chemicals disclosure.

Conclusion

This research has brought into conclusion the prolonged answer to EU’s environmental legal framework has in establishment a highly sufficient as well as united legislatory framework on the topic of environmental protection against the effects of shale gas production, as compared to the federal legal framework present in the US. The research thus clarifies first of all that having established a centralized legal regime in working towards the effects of shale production through the utilization of hydraulic fragmentation is highly preferable in tackling the issue in concern to the environment, as the EU does.However, there are a number of challenges that arise as well with the centralized authorization such as complexity and rigidity to any change within the system.

When making a comparison to the present environmental legislator framework in place in both the US as well as the EU in applicability to the production of shalegas, the diversity that presents itself in the two legal systems and even in the implementation within the member states is crucial to take into account. Both the EU and the US brought the strengths as well as weaknesses in their systems.

Even with the federal legislation having the upper hand at establishing a significantlycoherent legislation amongst the USstates,it failed at effectively having in place a more effective regulation system against the activities related to shale gas production and its environmental effects. With the present EU environmental legal frameworkestablished,a substantially more effective actions will be taken towards prevention of the environment against any harm at central level.Nevertheless, extraction of shale gasthrough the process of hydraulic fragmentation is yet to occur with the EU, but the region has the ability to effectively protect the environment through its framework, particularly when brought in comparison with the US legal framework that is currently in place.

Bibliography

Belyadi, H., Fathi, E., &Belyadi, F. (2017). Hydraulic fracturing in unconventional reservoirs: Theories, operations, and economic analysis.

Boersma, T. (2015). Energy security and natural gas markets in Europe: Lessons from the EU and the United States.

Boersma, T., & Johnson, C. (July 01, 2012). The Shale Gas Revolution: U.S. and EU Policy and Research Agendas. Review of Policy Research, 29, 4, 570-576.

Bruijnincx, P. C. A., &Weckhuysen, B. M. (November 11, 2013). Shale Gas Revolution: An Opportunity for the Production of Biobased Chemicals?. AngewandteChemie International Edition, 52, 46, 11980-11987.

Cairney, P., Fischer, M., &Ingold, K. (January 01, 2016). Hydraulic Fracturing Policy in the United Kingdom: Coalition, Cooperation, and Opposition in the Face of Uncertainty.

Charlez, P. A., Baylocq, P., Tardieu, B., & Brewerton, C. (2015). The shale oil and gas debate.

Cheremisinoff, N. P., Davletshin, A. R., &Dayal, M. (2015). Hydraulic fracturing operations: Handbook of environmental management practices.

Craynon, J. R., & Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration (U.S.). (2013). Environmental considerations in energy production. Englewood, Colorado: Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration, Inc. (SME.

Davis, C. (March 01, 2012). The Politics of “Fracking”: Regulating Natural Gas Drilling Practices in Colorado and Texas. Review of Policy Research, 29, 2, 177-191.

De, B. G., & Scott, J. (2006). Law and new governance in the EU and the US. Oxford: Hart.

Dickmann, N. (2016). Fracking: Fracturing rock to reach oil and gas underground.

Drogos, D. L., & American Chemical Society. (2015). Hydraulic fracturing: Environmental issues. Washington, DC: American Chemical Society.

Durant, R. F., Fiorino, D. J., & O’Leary, R. (2017). Environmental governance reconsidered: Challenges, choices, and opportunities.

Endres, A. (2011). Environmental economics: Theory and policy. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Ferguson, S., & Gilbert, M. T. (2013). Hydraulic fracturing and shale gas production: Issues, proposals and recommendations. New York, N.Y: Nova Science Pub.

Finkel, M. (2015). The Human and Environmental Impact of Fracking. (The human and environmental impact of fracking.) Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO.

Finkel, M. L. (2015). The human and environmental impact of fracking: How fracturing shale for gas affects us and our world.

Fisk, J. (2018). The fracking debate: Intergovernmental politics of the oil and gas renaissance.

Fisk, J. M. (July 01, 2013). The Right to Know? State Politics of Fracking Disclosure. Review of Policy Research, 30, 4, 345-365.

Fitzgerald, M. J. (2015). Fracking justice. Minneapolis, Minn: Mill City Press.

Fligstein, Neil D, Haveman, Heather A, &Kluttz, Daniel N. (2017). A Fractured Society: The Socio-Legal Environment of Fracking in the United States. eScholarship, University of California.

Fogarty, T., & Lamb, R. (2012). Investing in the renewable power market: How to profit from energy transformation. Hoboken, N.J: John Wiley & Sons.

Fretwell, B. A., Corden, C., & United Kingdom Water Industry Research,. (2013). Understanding the potential impacts of shale gas fracking on the UK water industry.

Gold, R. (n.d.). Boom, the: How Fracking Ignited the American Energy Revolution and Changed the World. Simon & Schuster.

Goldthau, A. (2018). The politics of shale gas in Eastern Europe: Energy security, contested technologies and the social licence to frack.

Heffron, R. J. (2015). Deconstructing energy law and policy: The case of nuclear energy.

Heffron, R. J., & Little, G. F. M. (2016). Delivering energy law and policy in the EU and the US: A reader. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Holloway, M. D. (2013). Fracking: The Operations and Environmental Consequences of Hydraulic Fracturing. Wiley-Scrivener.

Homsy, G. C., & Warner, M. E. (July 01, 2013). Climate Change and the Co-Production of Knowledge and Policy in Rural USA Communities. SociologiaRuralis, 53, 3, 291-310.

In Acosta, M. J. (2011). Advances in Energy Research. New York, N.Y: Nova Science Publishers.

In Cunningham, A. C. (2018). Fracking.

In Hefley, W. E., & In Wang, Y. (2015). Economics of unconventional shale gas development: Case studies and impacts.

In Hester, R. E., & In Harrison, R. M. (2015). Fracking.

In Hunter, T. (2016). Handbook of shale gas law and policy: Economics, access, law and regulation in key jurisdictions.

In Ladd, A. E. (2018). Fractured communities: Risk, impacts, and protest against hydraulic fracking in U.S. shale regions.

In Mathis, K., & In Huber, B. R. (2018). Energy law and economics.

In Murphy, A. R. (2013). Hydraulic fracturing: Legal issues and relevant laws.

In Schug, K., & In Hildenbrand, Z. L. (2017). Environmental Issues Concerning Hydraulic Fracturing.

In Thompson, T. (2013). Fracking.

In Wang, Y., & In Hefley, W. E. (2016). The global impact of unconventional shale gas development: Economics, policy, and interdependence.

In Weible, C. M., In Heikkila, T., In Ingold, K., & In Fischer, M. (2016). Policy Debates on Hydraulic Fracturing: Comparing Coalition Politics in North America and Europe.

Kavalov, B., Pelletier, N., & European Commission. (2012). Shale gas for Europe – main environmental and social considerations: A literature review. Luxembourg: EUR-OP.

Keeler, J. T. S. (January 01, 2016). The Politics of Shale Gas and Anti-fracking Movements in France and the UK.

Kefferpütz, R. (2010). Shale fever: Replicating the US gas revolution in the EU?. Brussels: Centre for Europ. Policy Studies.

Kolb, R. W. (2013). The natural gas revolution: At the pivot of the world’s energy future.

Koranyi, D., & Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies. (2011). Transatlantic energy futures: Strategic perspectives on energy security, climate change, and new technologies in Europe and the United States. Washington, D.C: Center for Transatlantic Relations, Paul H. Nitze School of Government, Johns Hopkins University.

Leal-Arcas, R., Wouters, J., & Edward Elgar Publishing. (2017). Research handbook on EU energy law and policy. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Pub.

Lévêque, F., &Shelanski, H. (2009). Antitrust and regulation in the EU and US: Legal and economic perspectives. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Majumdar, S. R. (2019). The politics of fracking: Regulatory policy and local community responses to environmental concerns.

Makuch, K. E., & Pereira, R. M. (2012). Environmental and energy law. Chichester, U.K: Wiley Blackwell.

Malin, M. A., & University of Alaska Fairbanks. (2016). The future of shale.

Marcovici, M. (2013). The fracking debate.

McGlynn, D., & CQ Press. (2011). Fracking controversy: Are new natural gas drilling methods safe?. Washington, D.C: CQ Press.

McQueen, D. (January 01, 2017). Fear, Loathing and Shale Gas. The Introduction of Fracking to the UK: A Case Study.

Montgomery, C. W. (2003). Environmental geology. Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Morris, C. R. (2013). Comeback: America’s new economic boom. New York: PublicAffairs.

Newton, D. E. (2015). Fracking: A reference handbook.

Nikiforuk, A. (2015). Slick water: Fracking and one insider’s stand against the world’s most powerful industry.

O’Donnell, M. C., Gilfillan, S. M. V., Edlmann, K., & McDermott, C. I. (January 01, 2018). Wastewater from hydraulic fracturing in the UK: assessing the viability and cost of management. Environmental Science: Water Research & Technology, 4, 2, 325-335.

O’Reilly, J. T. (2015). The law of fracking.

Parfitt, B., Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives., Wilderness Committee., & Climate Justice Project (B.C.). (2012). Fracking up our water, hydro power and climate: BC’s reckless pursuit of shale gas. Vancouver, B.C: Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, BC Office.

Pennsylvania Bar Institute. (2013). The environmental impacts of hydraulic fracturing: Dispelling the myths. Mechanicsburg, Pa. (5080 Ritter Rd., Mechanicsburg 17055-6903: Pennsylvania Bar Institute.

Policy debates on hydraulic fracturing: Comparing coalition politics. (2016).

Reins, L. (2017). Regulating shale gas: The challenge of coherent environmental and energy regulation.

Richter, Philipp M. (2013). From boom to bust? A critical look at US shale gas projections. (Series: DIW Discussion Papers ; No.1338.) Berlin: DeutschesInstitutfürWirtschaftsforschung (DIW.

Riedel, T. G., Schubert, D. K. J., Hauser, P., Schmidt, M., &Möst, D. (December 30, 2017). Analysis of the Potential Economic Viability of Shale Gas Resources in Europe. ZeitschriftFürEnergiewirtschaft, 41, 4, 283-298.

Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Foundation. (2015). International mining and oil & gas law, development, and investment. Westminster, Colo.: Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Foundation.

Rosenbaum, W. A. (2014). Environmental politics and policy.

Royal Society (Great Britain),,& Royal Academy of Engineering (Great Britain),. (2012). Shale gas extraction in the UK: A review of hydraulic fracturing.

Schultz, A. (2012). Hydraulic fracturing and natural gas drilling: Questions and concerns. New York: Nova Science Publishers.

Shale gas in europe: Opportunities, risks, challenges. (2013). Deventer: Claeys&Casteels Pub.

Spellman, F. R. (2013). Environmental impacts of hydraulic fracturing. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

Spellman, F. R. (2017). Hydraulic fracturing wastewater: Treatment, reuse, and disposal.

Steinberg, P. F., &VanDeveer, S. D. (2012). Comparative environmental politics. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

Stueck, H., Houseknecht, D., Franke, D., Gautier, D., Bahr, A., &Ladage, S. (September 01, 2016). Shale-Gas Assessment: Comparison of Gas-In-Place Versus Performance-Based Approaches. Natural Resources Research : Formerly `nonrenewable Resources’, 25, 3, 315-329.

Uddameri, V., Morse, A., &Tindle, K. J. (2016). Hydraulic fracturing impacts and technologies: A multidisciplinary perspective.

Vandecasteele, I., Marí, R. I., Sala, S., Baranzelli, C., Barranco, R., Batelaan, O., &Lavalle, C. (June 01, 2015). Impact of Shale Gas Development on Water Resources: A Case Study in Northern Poland. Environmental Management, 55, 6, 1285-1299.

Walker, T. J. (2018). Today’s environmental issues: Democrats and Republicans.

Waloszyk, M., & Edward Elgar Publishing. (2014). Law and policy of the European gas market. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Pub. Ltd.

Western Resource Advocates. (2012). Fracking our future: Measuring water & community impacts from hydraulic fracturing. Boulder, Colo: Western Resource Advocates.

Zito, A. R. (2000). Creating environmental policy in the European Union. Basingstoke: Macmillan Press Ltd.

.

Charlez, P. A., Baylocq, P., Tardieu, B., & Brewerton, C. (2015). The shale oil and gas debate. ↑
Boersma, T., & Johnson, C. (July 01, 2012). The Shale Gas Revolution: U.S. and EU Policy and Research Agendas. Review of Policy Research, 29, 4, 570-576. ↑
Cheremisinoff, N. P., Davletshin, A. R., & Dayal, M. (2015). Hydraulic fracturing operations: Handbook of environmental management practices. ↑
Cheremisinoff, N. P., Davletshin, A. R., & Dayal, M. (2015). Hydraulic fracturing operations: Handbook of environmental management practices. ↑
Bruijnincx, P. C. A., & Weckhuysen, B. M. (November 11, 2013). Shale Gas Revolution: An Opportunity for the Production of Biobased Chemicals?. Angewandte Chemie International Edition, 52, 46, 11980-11987. ↑
Ibid.., ↑
Boersma, T., & Johnson, C. (July 01, 2012). The Shale Gas Revolution: U.S. and EU Policy and Research Agendas. Review of Policy Research, 29, 4, 570-576. ↑
Fisk, J. (2018). The fracking debate: Intergovernmental politics of the oil and gas renaissance. ↑
Ibid.., ↑
Rosenbaum, W. A. (2014). Environmental politics and policy. ↑
De, B. G., & Scott, J. (2006). Law and new governance in the EU and the US. Oxford: Hart. ↑
Ibid.., ↑
Fretwell, B. A., Corden, C., & United Kingdom Water Industry Research,. (2013). Understanding the potential impacts of shale gas fracking on the UK water industry. ↑
Ibid.., ↑
Fisk, J. (2018). The fracking debate: Intergovernmental politics of the oil and gas renaissance. ↑
Durant, R. F., Fiorino, D. J., & O’Leary, R. (2017). Environmental governance reconsidered: Challenges, choices, and opportunities. ↑
Ibid.., ↑
Endres, A. (2011). Environmental economics: Theory and policy. New York: Cambridge University Press. ↑
Durant, R. F., Fiorino, D. J., & O’Leary, R. (2017). Environmental governance reconsidered: Challenges, choices, and opportunities. ↑
Boersma, T., & Johnson, C. (July 01, 2012). The Shale Gas Revolution: U.S. and EU Policy and Research Agendas. Review of Policy Research, 29, 4, 570-576. ↑
Ibid.., ↑
Boersma, T. (2015). Energy security and natural gas markets in Europe: Lessons from the EU and the United States. ↑
Ibid.., ↑
Craynon, J. R., & Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration (U.S.). (2013). Environmental considerations in energy production. Englewood, Colorado: Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration, Inc. (SME. ↑
Dickmann, N. (2016). Fracking: Fracturing rock to reach oil and gas underground. ↑
Craynon, J. R., & Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration (U.S.). (2013). Environmental considerations in energy production. Englewood, Colorado: Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration, Inc. (SME. ↑
Belyadi, H., Fathi, E., & Belyadi, F. (2017). Hydraulic fracturing in unconventional reservoirs: Theories, operations, and economic analysis. ↑
Ibid.., ↑
Holloway, M. D. (2013). Fracking: The Operations and Environmental Consequences of Hydraulic Fracturing. Wiley-Scrivener. ↑
In Cunningham, A. C. (2018). Fracking. ↑
In Hester, R. E., & In Harrison, R. M. (2015). Fracking. ↑
In Murphy, A. R. (2013). Hydraulic fracturing: Legal issues and relevant laws. ↑
Ibid.., ↑
In Hunter, T. (2016). Handbook of shale gas law and policy: Economics, access, law and regulation in key jurisdictions. ↑
In Mathis, K., & In Huber, B. R. (2018). Energy law and economics. ↑
In Weible, C. M., In Heikkila, T., In Ingold, K., & In Fischer, M. (2016). Policy Debates on Hydraulic Fracturing: Comparing Coalition Politics in North America and Europe. ↑
Ibid.., ↑
In Hunter, T. (2016). Handbook of shale gas law and policy: Economics, access, law and regulation in key jurisdictions. ↑
In Schug, K., & In Hildenbrand, Z. L. (2017). Environmental Issues Concerning Hydraulic Fracturing. ↑
Zito, A. R. (2000). Creating environmental policy in the European Union. Basingstoke: Macmillan Press Ltd. ↑
Vandecasteele, I., Marí, R. I., Sala, S., Baranzelli, C., Barranco, R., Batelaan, O., & Lavalle, C. (June 01, 2015). Impact of Shale Gas Development on Water Resources: A Case Study in Northern Poland. Environmental Management, 55, 6, 1285-1299. ↑
Ibid.., ↑
Shale gas in europe: Opportunities, risks, challenges. (2013). Deventer: Claeys & Casteels Pub. ↑
Richter, Philipp M. (2013). From boom to bust? A critical look at US shale gas projections. (Series: DIW Discussion Papers ; No.1338.) Berlin: Deutsches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung (DIW. ↑
Rosenbaum, W. A. (2014). Environmental politics and policy. ↑
Richter, Philipp M. (2013). From boom to bust? A critical look at US shale gas projections. (Series: DIW Discussion Papers ; No.1338.) Berlin: Deutsches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung (DIW. ↑
Ibid.., ↑
Marcovici, M. (2013). The fracking debate. ↑
Kefferpütz, R. (2010). Shale fever: Replicating the US gas revolution in the EU?. Brussels: Centre for Europ. Policy Studies. ↑
Makuch, K. E., & Pereira, R. M. (2012). Environmental and energy law. Chichester, U.K: Wiley Blackwell. ↑
Reins, L. (2017). Regulating shale gas: The challenge of coherent environmental and energy regulation. ↑
In Hunter, T. (2016). Handbook of shale gas law and policy: Economics, access, law and regulation in key jurisdictions. ↑
Leal-Arcas, R., Wouters, J., & Edward Elgar Publishing. (2017). Research handbook on EU energy law and policy. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Pub. ↑
Leal-Arcas, R., Wouters, J., & Edward Elgar Publishing. (2017). Research handbook on EU energy law and policy. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Pub. ↑
Lévêque, F., & Shelanski, H. (2009). Antitrust and regulation in the EU and US: Legal and economic perspectives. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. ↑
Makuch, K. E., & Pereira, R. M. (2012). Environmental and energy law. Chichester, U.K: Wiley Blackwell. ↑
Kolb, R. W. (2013). The natural gas revolution: At the pivot of the world’s energy future. ↑
Marcovici, M. (2013). The fracking debate. ↑
Kavalov, B., Pelletier, N., & European Commission. (2012). Shale gas for Europe – main environmental and social considerations: A literature review. Luxembourg: EUR-OP. ↑
Ibid.., ↑
Keeler, J. T. S. (January 01, 2016). The Politics of Shale Gas and Anti-fracking Movements in France and the UK. ↑
Kefferpütz, R. (2010). Shale fever: Replicating the US gas revolution in the EU?. Brussels: Centre for Europ. Policy Studies. ↑
In Murphy, A. R. (2013). Hydraulic fracturing: Legal issues and relevant laws. ↑
In Hefley, W. E., & In Wang, Y. (2015). Economics of unconventional shale gas development: Case studies and impacts. ↑
Heffron, R. J. (2015). Deconstructing energy law and policy: The case of nuclear energy. ↑
Fisk, J. (2018). The fracking debate: Intergovernmental politics of the oil and gas renaissance. ↑
Ibid.., ↑
Steinberg, P. F., & VanDeveer, S. D. (2012). Comparative environmental politics. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. ↑
Western Resource Advocates. (2012). Fracking our future: Measuring water & community impacts from hydraulic fracturing. Boulder, Colo: Western Resource Advocates ↑
Shale gas in Europe: Opportunities, risks, challenges. (2013). Deventer: Claeys & Casteels Pub. ↑
Royal Society (Great Britain),, & Royal Academy of Engineering (Great Britain),. (2012). Shale gas extraction in the UK: A review of hydraulic fracturing. ↑
Reins, L. (2017). Regulating shale gas: The challenge of coherent environmental and energy regulation. ↑
Richter, Philipp M. (2013). From boom to bust? A critical look at US shale gas projections. (Series: DIW Discussion Papers ; No.1338.) Berlin: Deutsches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung (DIW. ↑
Nikiforuk, A. (2015). Slick water: Fracking and one insider’s stand against the world’s most powerful industry. ↑
Malin, M. A., & University of Alaska Fairbanks. (2016). The future of shale. ↑
Morris, C. R. (2013). Comeback: America’s new economic boom. New York: PublicAffairs ↑
Ibid.., ↑
Marcovici, M. (2013). The fracking debate ↑
Ibid.., ↑
Majumdar, S. R. (2019). The politics of fracking: Regulatory policy and local community responses to environmental concerns. ↑
Lévêque, F., & Shelanski, H. (2009). Antitrust and regulation in the EU and US: Legal and economic perspectives. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. ↑
Parfitt, B., Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives., Wilderness Committee., & Climate Justice Project (B.C.). (2012). Fracking up our water, hydro power and climate: BC’s reckless pursuit of shale gas. Vancouver, B.C: Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, BC Office. ↑
O’Reilly, J. T. (2015). The law of fracking. ↑
In Weible, C. M., In Heikkila, T., In Ingold, K., & In Fischer, M. (2016). Policy Debates on Hydraulic Fracturing: Comparing Coalition Politics in North America and Europe. ↑
Fretwell, B. A., Corden, C., & United Kingdom Water Industry Research,. (2013). Understanding the potential impacts of shale gas fracking on the UK water industry. ↑
Heffron, R. J., & Little, G. F. M. (2016). Delivering energy law and policy in the EU and the US: A reader. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. ↑
Heffron, R. J., & Little, G. F. M. (2016). Delivering energy law and policy in the EU and the US: A reader. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. ↑
Fitzgerald, M. J. (2015). Fracking justice. Minneapolis, Minn: Mill City Press. ↑
Gold, R. (n.d.). Boom, the: How Fracking Ignited the American Energy Revolution and Changed the World. Simon & Schuster. ↑
Fisk, J. M. (July 01, 2013). The Right to Know? State Politics of Fracking Disclosure. Review of Policy Research, 30, 4, 345-365. ↑
Endres, A. (2011). Environmental economics: Theory and policy. New York: Cambridge University Press. ↑
Ibid.., ↑
Goldthau, A. (2018). The politics of shale gas in Eastern Europe: Energy security, contested technologies and the social licence to frack. ↑
In Ladd, A. E. (2018). Fractured communities: Risk, impacts, and protest against hydraulic fracking in U.S. shale regions. ↑
In Ladd, A. E. (2018). Fractured communities: Risk, impacts, and protest against hydraulic fracking in U.S. shale regions. ↑
Ibid.., ↑
Boersma, T. (2015). Energy security and natural gas markets in Europe: Lessons from the EU and the United States. ↑
Boersma, T., & Johnson, C. (July 01, 2012). The Shale Gas Revolution: U.S. and EU Policy and Research Agendas. Review of Policy Research, 29, 4, 570-576. ↑
Ibid.. ↑
De, B. G., & Scott, J. (2006). Law and new governance in the EU and the US. Oxford: Hart ↑
Durant, R. F., Fiorino, D. J., & O’Leary, R. (2017). Environmental governance reconsidered: Challenges, choices, and opportunities. ↑
Heffron, R. J. (2015). Deconstructing energy law and policy: The case of nuclear energy. ↑
Fretwell, B. A., Corden, C., & United Kingdom Water Industry Research,. (2013). Understanding the potential impacts of shale gas fracking on the UK water industry. ↑
Fisk, J. M. (July 01, 2013). The Right to Know? State Politics of Fracking Disclosure. Review of Policy Research, 30, 4, 345-365. ↑
Fligstein, Neil D, Haveman, Heather A, & Kluttz, Daniel N. (2017). A Fractured Society: The Socio-Legal Environment of Fracking in the United States. eScholarship, University of California. ↑
Endres, A. (2011). Environmental economics: Theory and policy. New York: Cambridge University Press. ↑
Endres, A. (2011). Environmental economics: Theory and policy. New York: Cambridge University Press. ↑
Holloway, M. D. (2013). Fracking: The Operations and Environmental Consequences of Hydraulic Fracturing. Wiley-Scrivener. ↑
Ibid.., ↑
In Hunter, T. (2016). Handbook of shale gas law and policy: Economics, access, law and regulation in key jurisdictions. ↑
Ibid.., ↑
In Thompson, T. (2013). Fracking. ↑
Newton, D. E. (2015). Fracking: A reference handbook. ↑
Pennsylvania Bar Institute. (2013). The environmental impacts of hydraulic fracturing: Dispelling the myths. Mechanicsburg, Pa. (5080 Ritter Rd., Mechanicsburg 17055-6903: Pennsylvania Bar Institute. ↑
Ibid.., ↑
O’Donnell, M. C., Gilfillan, S. M. V., Edlmann, K., & McDermott, C. I. (January 01, 2018). Wastewater from hydraulic fracturing in the UK: assessing the viability and cost of management. Environmental Science: Water Research & Technology, 4, 2, 325-335. ↑
Spellman, F. R. (2013). Environmental impacts of hydraulic fracturing. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. ↑
Spellman, F. R. (2013). Environmental impacts of hydraulic fracturing. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. ↑
Parfitt, B., Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives., Wilderness Committee., & Climate Justice Project (B.C.). (2012). Fracking up our water, hydro power and climate: BC’s reckless pursuit of shale gas. Vancouver, B.C: Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, BC Office. ↑
Kavalov, B., Pelletier, N., & European Commission. (2012). Shale gas for Europe – main environmental and social considerations: A literature review. Luxembourg: EUR-OP. ↑
Ibid.., ↑
Kolb, R. W. (2013). The natural gas revolution: At the pivot of the world’s energy future. ↑
Leal-Arcas, R., Wouters, J., & Edward Elgar Publishing. (2017). Research handbook on EU energy law and policy. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Pub. ↑
De, B. G., & Scott, J. (2006). Law and new governance in the EU and the US. Oxford: Hart. ↑
Drogos, D. L., & American Chemical Society. (2015). Hydraulic fracturing: Environmental issues. Washington, DC: American Chemical Society. ↑
Drogos, D. L., & American Chemical Society. (2015). Hydraulic fracturing: Environmental issues. Washington, DC: American Chemical Society ↑
Davis, C. (March 01, 2012). The Politics of “Fracking”: Regulating Natural Gas Drilling Practices in Colorado and Texas. Review of Policy Research, 29, 2, 177-191. ↑
Ferguson, S., & Gilbert, M. T. (2013). Hydraulic fracturing and shale gas production: Issues, proposals and recommendations. New York, N.Y: Nova Science Pub. ↑
Durant, R. F., Fiorino, D. J., & O’Leary, R. (2017). Environmental governance reconsidered: Challenges, choices, and opportunities. ↑

Herman Bailey

With a student-centered approach, I create engaging and informative blog posts that tackle relevant topics for students. My content aims to equip students with the knowledge and tools they need to succeed academically and beyond.

Understanding Depression: Forms, Causes, Symptoms and Treatment

by Herman Bailey | Feb 12, 2023 | Essays | 0 comments

Introduction

Perhaps the depression is the most prevalent of the emotional disorders. Depression varies from feelings of dejection to slight sadness and utter misery. Besides, it brings together a variety of psychological and physical symptoms that together constitutes a syndrome. Indeed, depression is the most spiteful event an individual can undergo. It is much more difficult to cope with depression that physical ailment. Globally, there is a growing complexity of modern life that has resulted in health crisis and as psychological strain and stress in day to day living that has significantly contributed to the rise of depression disorder. Depression also results from conditions of drudgery and monotony of a daily routine, without a meaningful life variation. Extreme cases of depression often result in suicidal thoughts from the victim. Most patients with depression may feel that nothing can help their situation. However, this is often untrue as numerous patients recover from bouts of depression, besides, some look back at it as a significant experience that compelled them to take a stock of their lives and make lifestyle changes. This essay provides a robust understating of depression from symptoms, treatment approaches, and forms of depression, causes, and prevention methods as well as recommendations for helping oneself, family and friends.

Related Posts

• Understanding Postpartum Depression: Symptoms, Causes, and Treatment Options
• 94 Mental Health Essay Topics and Ideas To Ace Your Paper
• 230 Mental Health Research Topics For Academic Writing
• Mental Health and the Media
• Health Equity: Sample Essay

Different Forms of Depression

Most individuals with depression never seek medical intervention as many may not be aware that they are depressed. As such, many people confuse depression with sadness, yet depression is more than passing a bout of sadness. Sadness, according to Craig and Harvard Health Publications (2013, p. 9), touches all of our lives at various levels; however, depression brings an enormous depth and staying power. Thus, depression is more than passing a bout of dejection. Depression comes in numerous forms and shapes. The different types of depression present unique causes, symptoms, and effects.

 Major Depression

This is often characterized by the inability of an individual to enjoy life and experiences pleasure. Symptoms of major depression are often constant ranging from moderate to severe. When it is left untreated, it may last for six months and can lead to serious impairment in daily life functioning and suicide in extreme cases. Some individuals may feel one episode of depression in their lifetime, however, in most instances, major depression is often recurrent. Major depression may be disabling in terms of loss of work productivity and time spent in bed similar to other chronic illnesses such as diabetes. Also known as clinical depression, it involves a combination of various symptoms. Essentially, it leads to poor concentration, sadness, fatigue, excessive guilt, appetite disturbances, insomnia, and suicidal thoughts.

Dysthymia (Mild, Recurrent Depression)

According to Wasserman (2011, p. 112) dysthymia is a type of chronic low-grade depression. In most cases, an individual may feel mildly depressed and brief periods of normal mood. While the symptoms of dysthymia are not stronger than that of major depression, they often last longer, for instance, two years. The chronic symptoms of dysthymia make it challenging to live life to the fullest. Besides, some individuals experienced major depressive episodes in addition to dysthymia, a condition referred to as double depression (Duckworth & Richard 2012, p. 4). Individuals suffering from dysthymia feel constant depression or may assume that the continuous low mood is natural. However, dysthymia is treatable even if the symptoms have gone untreated or unrecognized for years.

Bipolar Disorder

The condition, also referred to as manic depression, is characterized by cycling mood alterations. According to Wasserman (2011, p. 112), episodes of depression changes with manic episodes and may include hyperactivity, impulsive behavior, rapid speech, and little or no sleep. Usually, the change from one mood to another is gradual, with each depressive episode lasting for several weeks. An individual suffering from bipolar disorder exhibits the usual symptoms of major depression. However, the treatment of these two forms of depression is dissimilar.

Causes of Depression

The scientific research understanding provide that depression has numerous causes. Thus, it arises from myriad factors that sometimes occur simultaneously. An individual’s sex, age, genetic inheritance, brain chemistry imbalance, substance abuse, hormone changes and any other illnesses all significantly contribute to the development of depression, according to Wasserman (2011, p. 113). Depression may also occur spontaneously and unassociated with any crisis in life. Mood disorders and suicides predominantly run in families. In a case of genetic inheritance, for instance with identical twins, research, however, shows, that only 30 percent cases have twins developed depression genetically. While it has been established that biologically inherited depression development is associated with younger age of onset, new onset of depression occurring after age 60 may less likely to result from genetic predisposition. Likewise, life factors and events, whether inherited, the genetic tendency to develop depression will automatically lead to a major depression episode (Wasserman (2011, p. 112-113).
Bestowing to National Institute on Aging (2008, p. 8) certain life aspects such as financial standing and marital status may also lead to depression. While depression is predominant among homeless individuals, it is believed that depression strongly influences any individual that becomes homeless. Long lasting stressors like difficult marriage and unemployment plays a significant role in developing depression than sudden stressors such as receiving bad news. Traumatizing events may contribute to a general state of stress as well as alter brain functioning. Traumatic experiences that comes early in life, in particular, has been validated to lead to long-term brain functioning alterations that affects brains response to stresses and fears in the future (Duckworth & Richard 2012, p. 7). Indeed, this may be consolidating reason accounting for greater lifetime major depression incidences in individuals with a history of significant childhood trauma. Other factors linked to depression incorporate medical illness, sleep disturbances, anxiety, chronic pain, alcoholism, attention-deficit disorder or drug abuse.

 Symptoms

Usually, it is very challenging to diagnose depression clinically. According to, Battenhausen (2011, p. 49). the most striking depression symptoms ranges from feeling of an acute sense of loss to unexplained sadness, loss of interest and loss of energy. Depression patients often feel tied and show a lack of interest in the surrounding environment. Also, frequent sleep disturbances with disturbed sleep patterns and difficulty of getting off to sleep at night, repeated night wake ups and nightmares. Patients with depression may suffer from guilty, self-absorption and oppressive feelings. Other depression symptoms are giddiness, agitation, impotence, nausea, constipation, pains, aches, itching, lack of decision power, lack of concentration among others. Battenhausen further notes that cases of severe depression may be characterized by low blood pressure, low body temperature, shivering, and hot flushes. According to him, the external manifestations represent a cry for help from an individual with tormented mind.

Treatment

While depression may be a devastating illness, according to Bagaria, Holland and Reenen (2012, p. 78) it often responds to treatment. The secret is to achieve a particular evaluation and treatment plan. Currently, there are numerous treatment options for depression. For instance, there are electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), psychotherapy and medications. Besides, the new treatment known as repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation has been validated by Federal internet also promotes establishment of illegal pharmacies that may be dealing in unapproved or recalled drugs. Besides, online Drug Authority (FDA) for persons who have not responded well to one trial of an antidepressant. People with seasonal depression episodes may find light therapy significant. However, for other people, managing alternative illness through alternative therapies such as acupuncture, nutrition, and medication is useful.

Medications

Serious depression often responds effectively to medication, yet individuals with patterns of ailments have to learn how to cope. Psychotherapy or taking medicines prescribed by a physician are the popular methods of medication. Likewise, aerobic exercise, supportive relationships, education, and attention to co-occurring conditions are also beneficial in supporting recovery. Antidepressant medications may take between 2-4 weeks to demonstrate a significant effect and between 6-12 weeks to have their full effect (Bagaria, Holland and Reenen 2012, p. 79). In some cases, the patient may try different doses and antidepressants before narrowing to one or the combination that is most effective. Some of the antidepressants include selective serotin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) and Bupropin are some of the popular antidepressant medications.

Psychotherapy

Different types of psychotherapy have been demonstrated to help depression patients effectively. These, Duckworth and Richard (2012, p. 8-9) mentions, include interpersonal therapy and cognitive behavioral therapy. Treatment may last between 10-12 weeks with research supporting moderate depression to be treated successfully with psychotherapy. Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) assist in changing behavior associated with depression and negative thinking while educating people how to unlearn the patterns leading to depression illness (Duckworth & Richard 2012, p. 8-9). CBT primarily functions to recognize and eliminate negative thoughts. Interpersonal therapy (IPT), however, focuses on improving personal relationships that may lead to depression. The psychotherapist educates people to evaluate their interactions with others and recognize their difficulties and self-isolation getting along with, relating and understanding others (Duckworth & Richard 2012, p. 8-9). Lastly, psychodynamic psychotherapy that is more available yet recommended due to lack of data relating to its effectiveness.

Electroconvulsive Therapy (ECT)

This treatment approach is a highly effective for patients with severe depression. In case the psychotherapy and medication are not effective for treating severe symptoms, such as suicidal thoughts, ECT may be effective. For some individuals, a combination of ECT and antidepressants may work relatively well. In fact, memory problems follow ECT treatment; however, a careful risk assessment is necessary to effective intervention. The widely used ECT treatments are repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation and complementary and alternative medicine (Duckworth & Richard, 2012).

Aerobic Exercise

Literature based on research validations now support aerobic exercise to aid effectively in treating mild depression. A study by Craig and Harvard Health Publications (2013, p. 13) shows that aerobics exercise alone treated mildly to moderate depressive symptoms on adults. Exercise, according to research, enhances the action of endorphins and thus reduces the perception of pain and improves mood. Besides, exercise stimulates neurotransmitter norepinephrine that improves mood directly.

Previous Research on Depression

Research shows that the annual cost of depression in United States alone amounts to $80 billion due to illness care and loss of productivity (World Health Organization 2009, p. 26). Research indicates that more than one-half of individuals perishing out of suicide are experiencing depression. It is established that depression is the 10th leading cause of death in the United States (World Health Organization 2009, p. 26). Data provided by World Health Organization, indicates that depression is the leading cause of disability worldwide. Besides, it represents a global health challenge. Also, it’s the 4th contributor to the global burden of disease and research projects the by 2020, and it will be the second leading cause. Likewise, each year, depression affects between 5-8 percent of adults globally, thus around 25 million of adults experiences episodes of major depression every year. Depression, according to WHO, occurs 70 percent more frequently in women than men for unclear reasons, however.

Coping Strategies

Embracing a balanced lifestyle assists in making a life for depression more manageable. There are numerous strategies that are suggested to help in coping with depression. Firstly, becoming an expert in terms of reaching informational sources of depression is significant. The internet has enabled robust sharing of information and keeping network with people and reaching current research can make one cope effectively. Also, recognizing the symptoms development pattern is key. Individual identification of certain triggers and times of the year can help one seek aggressive intervention and prevent worsening situations. Thirdly, developing a wide support group is an important phase of recovery. Sharing thoughts and taking various activities with support groups and education programs promotes effective coping strategy with depression. Most importantly, engaging in treatment from healthcare personnel is fundamental to effective management of major depression. Health providers provide important information that are all important for managing depression.
Friends and quality of life. Arthur should be educated during the discussion with the doctor and also his Family
Caregivers form an important part of our lives, and they can provide many actions to help their loved ones cope with depression. Essentially, families and friends offers emotional support, listening carefully and talking to their loved ones based on the patient’s experiences is key. Caregivers have the opportunity to support and talk to people to understand the situation and provide necessary intervention. While it is common to families and the patient to experience grief due to drastic changes, support may help reduce the chances of re-inducing previous trauma. Moreover, persons suffering from mental illness must have their families working collaboratively and discuss previous episodes to demonstrate a clear recognition f the early signs of developing depression episode.

Conclusion

Nearly everyone experiences episodes of sadness from time to time. However, depression is validated to last longer. Depression may occur in individuals with serious medical illnesses such as stroke, heart disease, HIV/AIDS, and cancer. Also, depression is more prevalent in women than men. While life cycle, biological, and psychological factors have been suggested to be linked to women’s higher depression, it is still unclear. On the contrary, men experience depression through feelings of sadness, excessive guilt, and worthiness. Teens and children may develop depression and experience episodes as they enter their adulthood stage. Therefore, it is true nearly everyone may experience depression episodes in their lifetime. As such, it is important to adhere to the preventive lifestyle rather than medication to live a healthy lifestyle. Essentially, taking part in aerobic exercise, reading on recent research and creating robust support network is fundamental to living depression-free life.

References

Bagaria, N., Holland, D., & Reenen, J. V. (2012). Fiscal consolidation during a depression. National Institute Economic Review. 2012, F42-F54.

Battenhausen, L. J. (2011). Defeating depression: the calm and sense way to find happiness and satisfaction. Far Hills, NJ, New Horizon Press.

Craig M. & Harvard Health Publications. (2013). Understanding depression. A Harvard Medical School Special Health Report.

Duckworth, K. & Richard S. (2012). Depression. National Alliance on Mental Illness. Retrieved from www.nami.org/helpline/UnderstandingMajorDepression.pdf

National Institute On Aging. (2008). Depression. [Gaithersburg, Md.], National Institute on Aging, National Institute of Health, U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services. http://purl.access.gpo.gov/GPO/LPS110990.

Wasserman, D. (2011). Depression. Oxford, Oxford University Press. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&scope=site&db=nlebk&db=nlabk&AN=467673.

World Health Organization. (2009). Mental health aspects of women’s reproductive health: a global review of the literature. Geneva, World Health Organization.

Herman Bailey

With a student-centered approach, I create engaging and informative blog posts that tackle relevant topics for students. My content aims to equip students with the knowledge and tools they need to succeed academically and beyond.