Leaders of pro-upstate secession groups gathered Sunday in Bainbridge, New York to discuss the movement’s recent momentum to separate Upstate NY from the downstate-dominated New York City. Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s recent statewide ban on fracking, a form of natural gas extraction, is one of the recent developments that has revitalized the movement.

The appeal of fracking is clear, particularly for Upstate NY, as it has more, immediately, to benefit from economically. What’s more is that the areas that stand to monetarily benefit from it are not the same places that will suffer the consequences, in the form of rising sea levels, severe storms or deadly heat waves. This, of course, excludes the risk of groundwater contamination and earthquakes, two consequences fracking poses to the immediate area.

This debate of succession is not a new one, but Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s re-election, where he, according to an August 29 article from Daily Freeman News, won only 11 out of the 57 counties outside of New York City, has given the movement new life.

Those pushing for secession have two possible scenarios in mind: option one is to form two autonomous regions: New York and New Amsterdam. Option two would see the proposed land for New Amsterdam, roughly everything north of Poughkeepsie, to become part of Pennsylvania. Both options seek the same things: to sever the taxation link between upstate New York and New York City, lessen restrictions on gun control and, what will be discussed here in depth, create or be subsumed into a government where fracking is legal.

Not all of Upstate New York is aligned with the secession movement. Two Quinnipiac polls showed that 55 percent of upstate residents rely on wells for drinking water and oppose fracking, an August 31 article from the New York Post reported.

The pro-secession movement hopes to have changes made to the state constitution, changes which would enable the move to be on the ballot by 2017. The likelihood of this actually happening is quite slim, but the fact that it is a conversation, and has been for decades, illuminates a recurring clash of ideologies.

Fracking poses an unfortunate conundrum. The places that stand to monetarily benefit from the industry, in the short term, are rural, working-class areas. States like North Dakota and Pennsylvania, where fracking is legal, have enjoyed immediate profitability as a whole.

For this reason, it makes sense why many rural, politically conservative areas, like those pushing to secede, are eager to profit off of this dangerous natural gas extraction method. However, this short-term, damaging exploitation of the earth’s resources is a perilous road to go down.

We, as a society, are entrenched into the mindset that continued fossil fuel extraction is necessary to ensure continued economic growth. In order to break free from this dangerous mentality, the popular narrative must be shifted. Leaving natural gas in the ground must be seen as the investment that it is the single most important thing to improving the livability of our rapidly warming world.

Azor Cole is a senior public relations major and geography minor. His column appears weekly. He can be reached at azcole@syr.edu and followed on Twitter @azor_cole.

Published on September 3, 2015 at 1:22 am