They’re against fracking because there is so much Natural Gas (95.2% is methane). Methane is naturally created in the mantle (Lawrence Livermore Labs has proven this) and therefore, most nat gas is abiotic and not a fossil fuel.
At a conference on organic chemestry in 1892 John D Rockefeller sent a representative to have petroleum labeled an organic compound, since it was made up of mostly carbon and hydrogen (CH4). This conference’s agenda was to label which compounds were organic. They complied and Petroleum (Natural Gas and Coal) were from that point forward, fossil fuels.
This was done to create an impression that the supplies were limited.
Fracking makes natural gas too plentiful. In order to keep the price high, they need to kill fracking.
I would not spend a lot of time arguing that Methane is not a fossil fuel, It passes the chemistry test in that it burns with Oxygen and produces the resultant Carbon Dioxide and Water.
The rest of the facts remain true. The environmental movement is against fracking for two reasons (I believe). The first is that it supports growth. More energy will provide more electricity, more air conditioning, and more jobs for people. The second is that fracking could lead to the US becoming independent of Middle East oil production. (The rest of the world will still buy ME oil but the US could go its own way. Going our own way could result in the reduction of Muslim Wahabi training in the US and why the environmentalists are against this is beyond me, except that they are both charter members of the Democratic Party.
I do not mention global warming because fracking has resulted in a reduction in airborne Carbon (compared to coal fired electrical generation) and because growth is the main product these global warming folk are striking against. Otherwise, they would by happy to generate electricity with nuclear power plants.