Like the public meeting I attended in New York City, the debate over hydrofracking usually devolves into acrimony, and it is difficult for ordinary citizens to know whether to support or oppose hydrofracking. As I explained in Part I, proponents claim that increased production of natural gas is leading to lower energy prices, more jobs, energy independence, and a reduction of greenhouse gases. Opponents say that the industry’s rush to exploit shale reserves has led to water, air, and soil pollution and exposed communities to health problems, exploding wells, and earthquakes. The result is uncertainty and mistrust on both sides, and a certain amount of disinformation. In this part I take a close look at the pros and cons of hydrofracking, to help readers make informed decisions about an energy technology that is here to stay, for better or for worse.