pretending to be concerned that the government might stand up for the environment and against the big oil companies, and impose restrictions against fracking that are so arbitrary and onerous that we might ignore a potential 100 year supply of shale gas, sighing, "It would be a crime if we squandered this blessing." Seriously? The facts or precedent underlying this professed concern would be... what?
David Brooks laments that we need a regulatory regime that balances costs and benefits, lamenting, "This kind of balance is exactly what our political system doesn’t deliver". To support his argument he tells us, "So far, the Obama administration has done a good job of trying to promote fracking while investigating the downsides." In other words, the Democrats are doing exactly what Brooks suggests to be good policy. Is he concerned, then, that the Republicans will impede fracking because of a newly discovered concern for the environment or their distaste for the energy industry? If his argument is that our political system is failing because it is likely to compromise between Obama's position and "Drill, Baby, Drill", he's completely undermining (dare I say 'fracking') his thesis.