Kennedy’s Approach to Science and Fracking
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. claims he is battling “the politicized science that raised the flute loop to the top of the food pyramid.”
The former Secretary of Health and Human Services under President Trump has built a national reputation by critiquing regulatory influences, promoting transparency, and questioning widely accepted health narratives.
Yet regarding fracking in New York, Kennedy wasn’t so much a whistleblower as he was a theologian.
Does he apply the same level of skepticism toward the fracking ban he helped establish?
Back in 2013, Kennedy urged then-Governor Andrew Cuomo to abandon a plan that included 40 test wells for hydraulic fracturing aimed at tapping into natural gas in the Southern Tier region of the state.
His rationale? Some public health research from the Geisinger Health System in Pennsylvania—unused at that point—indicated that Kennedy could swiftly discern the health risks associated with fracking.
This study was never published, yet the myths stemming from it had considerable influence.
Cuomo changed his mind, and the test wells remained closed.
What started as a temporary ban on fracking became permanent.
The consequences have been significant. While Pennsylvania capitalized on an energy surge, rural communities in New York lagged behind.
Billions in energy resources lay untapped. Numerous high-paying jobs never materialized.
The opportunity to revitalize the local economy was lost, driving it deeper into decline.
In 2009, Southern County in New York enjoyed a higher GDP per capita than its counterpart just across the Pennsylvania border. However, following New York’s fracking ban, Pennsylvania embraced it.
A decade later, the economic trends have flipped.
A Heritage Foundation study assessing these similar “twintier” areas revealed that the fracking ban in New York translated to an estimated economic loss of $11,000 per county, or $27,000 per household.
Conversely, Pennsylvania experienced a surge in job creation, small business growth, and tax income, while New York’s rural economy struggled.
From motels and eateries to trucking and local commerce, fracking has spurred various revivals in Pennsylvania.
By banning it, New York effectively closed many doors and passed up an entire era of potential benefits.
Today, Kennedy is esteemed as a leading public health figure and has a chance to reevaluate a narrative shaped by the very politicized fears he often critiques.
He has made a name for himself by calling out what he labels “inconvenient science,” including issues from vaccine safety to challenges against corporate control over national dietary guidelines.
Though he decries media manipulation, corporate power, government collusion, and special interests, if Kennedy is genuinely committed to these causes, he must hold himself to the same standards.
The debate around fracking in New York remains unresolved. Monitoring has improved over the years. Technology is evolving, making it easier to manage environmental and health risks than it was back in 2014.
Yet, the ban persists. Outdated narratives and past political actions have helped shape Kennedy’s organization.
While fracking certainly has environmental impacts, issues like energy poverty and a decline in rural economies have yet to arise.
Public health encompasses more than just air quality. It’s also about jobs, housing, and opportunities.
If Kennedy is serious about driving a national conversation around science, health, and integrity, revisiting the stories he promoted is essential.
The fracking ban in New York wasn’t rooted in rigorous science but rather in fear, political pressure, and favorable timing.
While Kennedy may not regulate energy, he influences national perspectives on public health trade-offs and the trustworthiness of science.
He can’t selectively condemn captured science to support his current agenda while overlooking it when it aligns with his beliefs from the past.
To rebuild public trust in science, Kennedy ought to demand a fully independent review of New York’s fracking ban.
This isn’t about appeasing the energy industry, which largely abandoned its fracking ambitions in New York, nor about leveraging political power in the ongoing constitutional pipeline conflict between Trump and Governor Kathy Hochul.
It’s more about exemplifying the transparency and intellectual honesty that Kennedy seeks from others challenging established views. The credibility of his overall mission hinges on this.
Many people already question whether Kennedy’s battle against “politicized science” pertains only to issues he opposes.
David Catalfamo, previously serving as Director of Communications and Vice President of Economic Development under Governor George Pataki, shared these insights.
