Unconventional natural gas often is described as gamechanging and transformative; a revolution heralding a golden age of cheap, plentiful energy for a resource-constrained world—but only if it makes it out of the ground.

As shown by local bans in the U.S. and Canada, national moratoriums in France and Bulgaria, and tighter regulation in Australia and the U.K., the global anti-fracing movement has mounted an effective campaign against the extraction of unconventional gas and oil through hydraulic fracturing. Meanwhile, the oil and gas industry has largely failed to appreciate social and political risks and has repeatedly been caught off guard by the sophistication, speed and influence of anti-fracing activists.

What the movement wants

The anti-fracing movement wants four main things. First, parts of the anti-fracing movement are not opposed to hydraulic fracturing per se but want to extract a better deal from the industry in terms of economic opportunity, taxation and compensation. Moves by local governments to extract “impact fees” fall into this camp, as do calls for local hiring.

Second, anti-fracing activists want further study of the environmental, economic, health and safety impacts of intensive unconventional gas development, partly to inform regulatory and tax policies but also as a stalling tactic to impede the industry’s expansion. As New York's experience shows, repeated environmental studies can set back drilling activity by years.

Third, those strongly opposed to the industry—whether on water quality or climate protection grounds—want moratoriums and outright bans on drilling activity. The experiences of both France and Bulgaria show that well-organized grassroots anti-fracing movements can quickly set the terms of the policy debate and compel fragile governments— often with elections looming—to cancel licenses and prohibit hydraulic fracturing.

Finally, and most commonly, the anti-fracing movement wants tighter regulation of unconventional gas development. With tighter regulation, enforcement and accountability, a sizable swath of the anti-fracing movement— from community activists with single-issue grievances to influential environmental nongovernmental organizations (NGOs)—is probably prepared to drop its objection to hydraulic fracturing.

How the movement operates

Grassroots mobilization has been fundamental to the global anti-fracing movement. Much of the grassroots opposition to hydraulic fracturing emerged and spread organically, stimulated by messaging such as that found in the film “Gasland,” rising media coverage of the industry and the physical advent or expansion of drilling activity.

This is reflected in the hundreds of community-based anti-fracing groups that have emerged in the U.S., France, Australia, the U.K., Ireland, South Africa, Canada, Bulgaria, Germany and elsewhere in the past few years, many of which initially had few, if any, ties to environmental groups.

The anti-fracing movement is particularly adept at organizing through social media. The extensive use of free or low-cost online platforms has both facilitated grassroots participation and helped level the information playing field vis-à-vis the gas industry. Through such platforms, activists and groups share documents, organize demonstrations, mobilize supporters and closely track industry developments.

Online communications enable a further pillar of the anti-fracing movement: global networking. This occurs through peer-to-peer activist networks, international environmental NGO campaigns and shared ideological and political frameworks. Global networking also facilitates fundraising, both from philanthropic organizations and directly from the public.

While the bulk of the anti-fracing movement is geared toward policy advocacy, litigation and other forms of institutional opposition, some activists and groups believe direct action against the industry is necessary to halt unconventional gas development. Direct action, ranging from blockades of project sites to sabotage, is intended to draw media attention to the anti-fracing movement, motivate the antifracing opposition and physically disrupt operations.

What’s next?

It is likely that 2012 set the high-water mark for the antifracing movement. Regulatory reviews concluded in key battlegrounds, technological innovations were reducing the environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing and the anti-fracing movement itself—though far from exhausted —was grappling with the consequences of its successes.

These dynamics point to three trends that could guide the future of the anti-fracing movement. First, the movement will seek out new geographies outside North America and Europe, where unconventional gas development is prospective. The movement may be able to tap into existing indigenous rights, labor, water and environmental concerns in in prospective countries such as Argentina, India, Mexico and Ukraine.

The anti-fracing movement has also started to engage a wider set of policy issues related to energy and the environment. Partly, this is a natural outcome of its close organizational and ideological links to the climate change movement. But it also reflects a perceived need to maintain momentum in the face of policy successes and attempts to roll back moratoria and regulation on the industry.

Finally, parts of the movement could radicalize in response to both internal fragmentation and shifts in the policy environment. Given tighter regulation and a favorable commercial climate, hydraulic fracturing is likely to be ultimately permitted in many, if not most, jurisdictions worldwide. As with conventional oil and gas, coal, nuclear, timber and other sectors, this could make unconventional oil and gas a target of more radical direct action.

How to respond

Parts of the anti-fracing movement will never be reconciled to fossil fuel extraction, whether it is completed through hydraulic fracturing or conventional drilling. But the industry can take steps to offset social and political opposition, both now and in the future.

First and foremost, the industry needs to acknowledge the legitimacy of local grievances. Blaming anti-fracing sentiment on fear, hysteria, misinformation and external manipulation simply antagonizes key local stakeholders, leading to the problems confronting the industry today. Movements toward greater transparency and voluntary disclosure, however grudging, are a positive step in this direction.

The industry needs a broad-spectrum political-engagement strategy that is not overly dependent on cozy relationships with regulators, power brokers and other narrow points of influence. This means laying stable—even if expensive— groundwork with local communities, especially in terms of mechanisms to register and redress grievances.

Next, the industry needs to continue to make good-faith efforts to reduce adverse impacts across the board in terms of water pollution, health and safety, noise, erosion and roads.

Finally, the industry should create more winners by widely distributing the direct benefits of gas development. For most communities this means procuring as much as possible locally, providing jobs and training to local workers, paying required taxes and—crucially—making long-term investments that deliver a sustained economic boost.