For only a ten year supply of energy, fracking in Europe would contaminate drinking water, cause severe environmental damage and create vast industrial landscapes, says a study on fracking, as the German government pushes to legalize the controversial extraction method, EurActiv Germany reports.

The environmental impact of shale gas extraction in Germany and Europe are in no way proportionate to the raw materials gained using this method of drilling, a new study argues. “We should not compare the conditions in Germany with those in the United States”, said Werner Zittel, the author of the study released by the NGO Energy Watch Group.

For one thing, Germany is much more densely populated, he said, increasing the risk for people and the environment near extraction sites. To date, few scientifically sound analyses are available on the effects of fracking on people and the environment. But severe environmental damage can be observed in the United States, where fracking is already widespread.

Some scientific investigations have also found evidence that fracking has increased the danger of earthquakes in the United States. And the University of Innsbruck recently discovered that fracking pollutes the air with gases that are harmful to human health and the climate.

But the risks for man and nature are not the only important arguments against the controversial technique. Its cost-effectiveness is also questionable, said Green Party politician Hans-Josef Fell, president of the Energy Watch Group and author of the Renewable Energies Act from the year 2000.

“Unlike in the United States, which is the only country conducting fracking at a commercially relevant scale, the method cannot achieve a sufficient result from extraction in Europe”, Fell said.

First, Germany lacks the infrastructural conditions for fracking. Turning the areas used into industrial landscapes, maintaining streets as well as storage and transport of the special sand required for fracking, are some of the investments the country would have to make.

All in all, Fell points out, it is a disproportionate amount of money to spend, for a technique that is only likely to supply Europe with energy for ten years, according to current estimates, and for a method that rapidly spreads to cover more and more area.