Your worldview exists a dichotomy which is why your understanding of this issue is poor. Fracking obviously can be done in a way that is detrimental to the environment and public health. However, most of the negative effects of fracking can be minimized through regulation and heavy enforcement of best practices. The majority of the world either is currently going through or has yet to begin the industrial revolution, which means they get most of their energy from burning wood and coal. They will need natural gas as a transitional fuel source to get off of coal. Our country will need natural gas if we are going to make the transition to powering our economy with wind and solar energy sources until we solve the energy storage problem. For this reason the benefits of fracking outweigh the costs at this time.

So that's your cope? Neoliberalism keeps losing because politics and policy are hard?

If by "neoliberalism" you mean "smart policy backed by the majority of experts", then yes.

If you could please let me in on your wealth of knowledge, answer the following questions and I can do my own research from there:

Fracking is harmful to the environment? Yes/No

Depends on how it's done. Properly regulated it poses minimal risk, and is objectively better than mining/burning coal.

Harmful substances are released in fracking? Yes/No

Very little if done correctly. Certainly less than the current alternative of mining/burning coal.

A national economy heavily reliant on the export of a certain natural resource is affected negatively if the global market price of that resource drops? Yes/No

From a single country's production increase? Very little. Most of the top exporters like Qatar and Norway are doing fine, and those that aren't are far more easily explained by other circumstances such as sanctions.

These questions only make sense if the alternative is some magical zero risk/solution energy source and highlight how little thought you put into this.