Language Counts
(Original)
Extreme Environmentalists,
Fracking, Spills, Disasters, and the Freemarket
A Call for Radical
Accountability
-by
Jay Burney
Written in March 2012 - Edited Version Published in Artvoice, 03/01/12
Last week, BP went on trial for the damages caused by the Macondo/Deepwater Horizon Well explosion in the Gulf of Mexico that caused 11 direct human deaths and untold damages to the ecology and economic future of the Gulf Coast.
In the years leading up to
the Macondo/Deep Water Horizon well explosion in the Gulf of Mexico, arguably
the greatest human caused environmental disaster in history, the world was
silent on the environment. For almost a decade the media downplayed
environmentalism as an extremely obstructionist strategy preventing economic
growth. Climate change deniers grabbed the headlines. The devastations of the
energy industry were obscured by the American obsession with war and the latest
Hollywood sex scandals. Media abandoned its seasoned reporters and went with
industry “talking points” to construct storylines that had no critical basis.
Even after the ongoing
disaster all but destroyed the ecosystems and human lifestyles of the Gulf,
many still refer to the disaster as a “spill”. This was no spill.
This is a huge disaster
that was caused by a deceptive industry intent on cutting corners and squeezing
the most profit possible out of dangerous operations. Whenever you hear the
phrase “Gulf Oil Spill”, you probably downplay the reality and enormity of this
planet changing disaster. This
week, BP went on trial for the damages caused by the Macondo blow out that
caused 11 direct human deaths and untold damages to the ecology and economic
future of the Gulf Coast.
The New York State hydrofracking
issue has brought an oil and gas industry sponsored hate campaign replete with
a barrage of partisan and divisive language crafting. The phrase engineering is
designed to incite passion against those that urge a cautious approach to
hydrofracking.
This includes economic
arguments that urge us to believe unconditionally that jobs and economic growth
are totally dependent upon the industries ability to extract wealth for private
gain from among other places, public properties and with public money. The truth is much further away.
An industry oriented
projection analysis of fracking affiliated New York State jobs has been
repeated by the New York State DEC as it seeks to justify hydrofracking
operations in the state. DEC
consultants, -a local WNY company
with strong ties to the oil and gas industry, Ecology an Environment, wrote in
a taxpayer-funded report that an average NYS shale gas development
scenario would bring 53,969 jobs.
Food and Water Watch, an activist organization opposed to hydrofracking
published an independent analysis last November entitled “New York State
Exaggerated Potential Job Creation from Shale Gas Development.” It states that the Ecology and
Environment projections are “deeply flawed”. It states that “in the first year of an average scenario
only 195 new jobs would be created for NYS residents, and that after 10 years
only 600 jobs. After the 10th year there would be almost no more new
jobs created”.
There are other
substantial economic, environmental, and social impacts. These include the
probable boom and bust cycle that accompanies most natural resources extraction
operations. Communities should
experience extraordinary downsides once the fracking operations cease. These include significant
infrastructure costs including roads and maintenance, damage to fragile and
valuable ecological systems, and impacts on human health and well-being.
Principle concerns made by
anti-fracking activists point to a consequential lack of science that substantiates
that fracking safe. There is more
than enough evidence to suggest that both the process and chemicals injected
into the earth permanently contaminates water that all life depends upon. This
effects humans, animals, and agriculture and food production. There is
significant science that clearly links chemicals used in hydrofracking with
human disease including a wide array of cancers. This business is as
serious and as costly as death.
Many of these impacts are
considered “externalities” by our traditional way of economic accounting. This
means that many of the fracking costs will not be paid for by the industry and
instead will be born by individuals and taxpayers.
One of the principle
issues is that many of the chemicals used are proprietary, which means that
they are kept secret by the industry. While we know mostly what the chemicals
are, by hiding the truth behind specific proprietary disclosures, the industry can
disingenuously argue that chemicals found in well water and aquifers cannot be
traced to the drilling sources.
In addition, gas and oil extractions are legally exempt from important
parts of the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the Clean Water
Act, the Community Right to Know Act, the Clean Air Act, The National
Environmental Policy Act, and the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act. This Bush/Cheney era energy legislation enjoyed
bipartisan support. Accountability and the ultimate health costs are protected
by a complex and costly legal system that ensures that costs will be borne by a
wider society, -the taxpayers and individuals affected. These corporate
entitlements are outrageous and dangerous.
As of this writing
the USEPA is at least a year away from releasing its science on the safety of
hydrofracking. Early drafts
clearly point out that that contaminated well waters and aquifers are directly
linked to fracking operations. This brings us to the common sense fact that the
“economic impact” of gas extraction may be far from positive. Individuals that
have testified against fracking include doctors, ecologists, scientists,
economists, oil and gas extraction specialists, and DEC technical staff whom
say that they do not have nearly enough resources to safely oversee fracking.
When the federal
government states that they are considering requiring gas drilling companies to
disclose proprietary formulas used in frack liquids, the question has to be
“disclose to whom?” Unless this is fully disclosed to the public there is no
possible way that the public will be safe. Nor can the public make informed decisions about fracking
safety. Many, including those inside government claim that the government does
not have the resources to oversee the many aspects of fracking. It is not hard
to imagine that as the size of our government recedes, the ability of oversight
will also diminish. If the formulas
are disclosed to the public, we certainly will find a way to scrutinize,
analyze and ultimately make informed and transparent choices about the
activities, processes and impacts of this very dangerous industry and its
economic, environmental and social consequences.
Environmental activists of
all stripes have been and continue to be targets of the campaign to disarm
citizen knowledge. This assault is led by industry apologists and death
merchants, many of which stand to make huge profits if we the people allow
fracking.
Industry apologists
continue to target citizen awareness.
In early December Fred
Dicker, the longtime state editor of the NY Post went off on “extreme environmentalists
on a Fox TV broadcast suggesting that those that oppose fracking are radicals,
use hyperbole, are extremists and uninformed. Local news accounts from
our “legacy” TV and print outlets carry that same message. More often than not the media carries
uncritical accounts of hydrofracking issues from the point of view of the
businesses that have the money to spend underwriting the local “news”
operations. I am sure that most of you think that hydrofracking in NYS is good
for our economy and will provide lots of jobs.
The propaganda greased by
the big companies goes all the way to the Governors office, and beyond. Some
of the justifications go beyond the pale.
Recently, Republican
presidential candidate Rick (google it) Santorum, whom seems to believe that
his radical brand of fundamental Christianity should guide our political/economic/social
destiny, suggested that God made planet earth in order to allow humans to
exploit its natural resources. He said that “radical environmentalists believe
that man should protect the earth”.
He said, “That is a phony ideal, we are not here to protect the earth”,
and that “the objective is man, not environment”. How does one even begin to address this exasperating
disconnect? Without a healthy earth,
a healthy planet, there is no “man”. If we poison the planet with phony
idealism such as Santorums, humans disappear. It’s that simple. This election may very well be about
the ability of humans to survive.
Activists that are willing
to go against the grain and stand up for ecological integrity, clean water and
air, and fight with their words and actions against a monstrous corporate
financial and propaganda machine should be considered heros and patriots.
Instead some of the mainstream media parrots the industry talking points and
portrays activists in as mislead, selfish, obstructionists, socialists, or
worse eco-terrorists. That last label puts individuals and organizations that
oppose fracking and are willing to say so on a list of potential criminals and
the consequences are becoming increasingly dire.
Just because someone is so
green that the trees hug them doesn’t or shouldn’t mean that they are
extremists. Why aren’t the profiteers and their spokespuppets that use
disinformation, incomplete half-truths and quick decision-making that masques
economic, environmental, and social truths considered the extremists? Who are the
criminals here?
Set Out
A Call for Radical
Accountability
The first order of
business is to ban fracking.
Beyond that we should make
the industry be totally accountable by
-Revisiting the federal
exemptions from environmental and community protections.
-Make the industry pay for
independent analysis.
It is time that we adopt a
newly emerged from the “Occupy Movement concept”- "Radical Accountability".
Lets take the promises of
jobs and safety from of the industry and codify them, with financial
incentives. For instance, if the state is not going to wait for the science, do
the health analysis, or conduct full economic evaluations, make the profiteers
accountable by demanding that corporate entitlements be incentivized by:
-A public accountability
panel with each appointee and no members or their families linked
to industry hydrofracking profits. The independent panel must be funded by the
private sector and will include a privately financed fund to independently evaluate
health and economic impacts of hydrofracking in NYS.
-Full public disclosure of
chemicals used, to include tracers on the chemicals and substances used at each
site, so that when they appear in water, they can be sourced.
-Adequate private financed
bonding (A minimum $50 million bond for each well) for potential public
damages. Let the industry bear the costs, not society. Let the freemarket
decide! Make the externalities internal transparent costs.
-Publically disclosed job
guarantees linked to every individual well and the aggregate that includes
penalties for nonperformance, and under performance. Negotiate job creation
contracts in public, and be financially incentivized and accountable if they
turn out not to be true.
Without these actions, the
public takes all the risks, there is no free market and the corporate
entitlements will continue to eviscerate the 99%.
Without these actions we cannot find a way to
protect our environment, and not to put too fine a point on it, but without
ecosystems there is no economy.
