This is the second article looking at the issue of fracking in Michigan. Part one discussed earthquakes, water usage and misinformation in the media about the process.

The popular fears about hydraulic fracturing, "fracking," tend to be overblown or based on ignorance about what can seem like a confusing process.

But there are legitimate debates among experts about ongoing or potential harms. These include issues of flowback, which is the water-based solution that flows to the surface as a result of fracking, leaking, greenhouse gas emissions from methane and general debate about risk.

Anthony Ingraffea, a professor of engineering at Cornell University, says he worries about the effects of drilling, which as the process increases, could damage the environment.

"Fracking is an enabling technology and is actually a relatively small part of the entire process," he said. "By far and away, the environmental issues, the human health issues, (and) the climate change issues depend much more on what happens other than fracking."

However, several experts were careful to put these problems in context and explained that there is a trade-off, or cost, to produce any type of energy.

Regarding issues like flowback and contamination, geologist Hal Fitch said Michigan carefully monitors and regulates the fracking process. In the state, waste is required to be stored in metal containers. Other states allow open wells prior to disposal. Companies today also are able to clean and reuse the water in other wells.

One ongoing issue is over greenhouse gas emissions.

Natural gas generally is seen as a cleaner and "greener" alternative to oil and coal. In the past six years, the United States has led the world in carbon emissions reductions, largely because of the explosion in natural gas extraction brought on by the fracking process.

But in recent years, there have been competing studies over how much methane leaks from natural gas wells and the effects that may have on greenhouse gas emissions. Some scientists, most notably at Cornell University, maintain that methane leaks may be as damaging to the environment as the emissions from coal plants.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and other groups disagree. Earlier this year, the EPA estimated that methane emissions were down substantially over the past two decades, despite a 40 percent increase in natural gas production.

Donald Siegel, a professor of Earth sciences at Syracuse University, said this is an issue to keep an eye on.

"The intellectual leadership against fracking are reasonably concerned that methane loss during production (individually minor but combined plausibly meaningful) could exacerbate global climate disruption," he said. "This is a hypothesis worth looking at more. I, too, am concerned about climate disruption and very much so."

Energy companies have been responding, trying to capture and sell the methane rather than burn it off.

Terry Engelder, a professor of geosciences at Penn State University, shares some of Siegel's concerns, but points out that other sources of energy also have costs. They think energy production, and fracking in particular, is greatly misunderstood.

Siegel said he "knows of no other industry so distorted by opponents."

Now studying in Pennsylvania, Engelder was in Michigan looking at the Antrim Shale in the 1980s. He said gas and oil extraction is getting safer all the time, but there is a risk in everything. He say all energy has costs and the debate ignores the issue of risk, which people accept in almost every area of their lives but are supposed to pretend doesn’t exist when it comes to fracking and energy.

"With the misinformation, the public has no way to access risk," Engelder said. "Risk can be measured in driving, and the public tolerates that risk … and yet they apparently tolerate zero risk in the gas industry? Meanwhile, (the public) is using natural gas to heat their homes and cook their hamburgers … that isn’t free."

The tea party movement is largely seen as part of the conservative plank of the Republican Party, but on one yearly scorecard, a Michigan tea party group rates two Democrats and two Republicans at the top of the list for voting in line with its ideals.

The Clarkston-based Independents for Responsible Government focuses on the "three goals of fiscally responsible government, limited government, and private sector job growth" and has been around since 2010. On its most recent scorecard, four representatives in the State House tied for first, voting 64 percent with bills the group selected to score: Rep. Scott Dianda, D-Calumet; Rep. Doug Geiss, D-Taylor; Rep. Ken Goike, R-Ray Township; and Rep. Tom McMillin, R-Rochester Hills.

Rep. Geiss said he doesn't take notes on pleasing people outside his district, but the votes cited by the group have crossover appeal.

"I may not align with them on always voting 'no taxes,' " Rep. Geiss said, adding that there is a balance on revenue for government and funding programs. "It looks like I agreed with their viewpoint on pension issues and [select corporate subsidies]."

The most recent scorecard focuses on areas like corporate welfare, education choice, pension double-dipping, fees and Medicaid expansion.

Ray Hamman, the leader of the group, said that previous legislative sessions normally have Republicans at the top of the card, but this time in the Senate the five lowest scores were from the GOP.

Because of the current importance the group placed on Medicaid expansion, which is a key component of implementing Obamacare, Hamman said the group scored two votes on the issue.

"In Michigan, the issue getting the most attention is the Medicaid expansion, which is strongly opposed by most conservative groups," Hamman said. "Obamacare is a major reason that tea parties were started, and we have an opportunity to send a message by not volunteering to build the health care exchange in Michigan and not accepting the bribes for a costly and ineffective Medicaid expansion. Obamacare is a disaster for both deficit spending and effective health care, and we must do everything we can to replace it with an effective, market based solution for providing health care services."

He said other areas like fee increases and select subsidies should not be overlooked, and that recent votes showed most Republicans supporting fee increases with most Democrats opposed.

"Until the Legislature takes serious actions to actually stop wasteful and unnecessary spending, there is no justification for any tax increases, for anything," Hamman said. "Corporate welfare like the movie and green energy subsidies are an obvious place to start. Unfortunately corporate welfare is probably the best example of bipartisanship — both parties love giving taxpayer money to favored businesses. This practice is so harmful that we publish a special extract of the scorecard focused on corporate welfare, and the scores are consistently abysmal — most legislators in both parties score zero."

Hamman praised the Legislature for the past session when the GOP had a "historic" vote and passed the state's right-to-work law. But, he added, "I hope they don't think that gives them a free pass on fee and tax increases, or continuing the ultimately corrupting practice of corporate welfare."

Rep. Geiss said there are many ways to find common ground between the political parties.

"When you take individual issues, none of us are predetermined," Rep. Geiss said. "I can agree with people in the Republican Party and they can agree with my position, that's the reality of government. We have to represent our districts. I think people want to paint both parties as having this animosity. That has not been the case in my four-and-a-half years there."

Citizens interested in tracking how their legislators vote can do so easily at: www.MichiganVotes.org.