The political feasiblity of environmentally and publically friendly natural gas drilling ostensibly remains determined by the decisions of the major policy actors in both the public and private sectors. In the case of the former, governmental organizations such as the EPA and Bureau of Land management, alongside the current Obama administration, must essentially consolidate a singular policy in order to realize natural oil digging in a manner that is sensitive to the unique social problems and environmetnal concerns that such digging presents.  In the case of the latter, private companies that wish to carry out natural gas drilling because of the lucrative nature of such contracts tend to minimize such concerns, for example, in the withholding of information concerning chemicals used in the fracking process (Lustgarten, 2009). This evinces that political decisions continue to be influenced by the private sector. Such an influence is argubaly the result not only of the functioning of contemporary politics, but to the greater capitalist ideology that prioritizes profit. Accordingly, the political feasibility of environmentally and ethically aware drilling essentially must engage with both political ideology and the practice of current industry, in order to ensure safe energy extraction strategies.

According to the sensitive nature of such drilling, overall political feasibility ultimately rests on an ethical responsibility that maintains a commitment to environmental issues. That is to say, such drilling requires a concomitant consciousness of a greater ethical imperative that regulates such drilling. This, however, means that political bodies must essentially act as a certain moral agent. Such an ethical commitment has nonetheless been absent. According to The New York Times, natural gas drilling has been decisively influenced by the private sector: “studies by scientists at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on fracking have been repeatedly narrowed in scope by superiors, and important findings have been removed under pressure from the industry.” (Democracy Now! 2011) The failure of governmental agencies and the elision of data as influenced by the industry suggest that political feasibility remains determined by non-political that is to say, private sources.

The extent of this influence is evident in the governmental report Annual Energy Outlook 2010, which states that, “growth in natural gas production is affected by economic growth and advances in exploration and production technology.” (p. 72) Accordingly, even governmental reports recapitulate the possible growth of natural gas production in terms of the private sector. What is striking about this synopsis is that political feasibility is essentially undermined according to an emphasis on the workings of the free market itself. The political essentially has no place in this process’ growth; moreover, such reports omit the possible health and environmental concerns involved.

This problem is further exacerbated by legislation that differs on a state-by-state basis. As Abraham Lustgarten (2008) notes, this inconsistency leads to the absence of clear industry standards, with clear negative environmental consequences. The enactment of a policy on the federal level would, however, necessitate this aforementioned strong commitment to an ethical and environmentally friendly approach to natural gas drilling.

This entails that safe natural gas drilling requires a political intervention on the federal level. However, this means that politics on the federal level must intervene in the private sector, an intervention that is shunned upon by the greater ideological outlook of America as free market capitalist system. The political feasibility of industry wide standards in order to maintain ethical commitments to the public and the environment remains subject to the ideology and practice of profit.