Community and Environmental Rights

A lot of people don't think of "the environment" has being owed rights. "What? Give trees rights?" You might think it's something to scoff at but there's a long tradition of recognizing nature as being owed something other than a numerical dollar value for its extractive potential, its ability to be turned into a chair, a car, or a hand-held device, or its value as property.

In 1948, Aldo Leopold wrote "The Land Ethic" in A Sand County Almanac. He believed that things were owed moral status if they are part of the community. He wrote,

All ethics so far evolved rest upon a single premise: that the individual is a member of a community of interdependent parts. His instincts prompt him to compete for his place in that community, but his ethics prompt him also to co-operate (perhaps in order that there may be a place to compete for).

The land ethic simply enlarges the boundaries of the community to include soils, waters, plants, and animals, or collectively: the land.

These simple lines have infused much of the environmental movement's ethics for 60 years. They resonate to some degree in the work of environmentalists' and environmental groups' rhetoric to varying degrees. And some take it more seriously than others.

Today on the show, we will be talking to Ben Price of the Community and Environmental Legal Defense Fund (CELDF). They argue that the escalating ecological crises we are living in has resulted from decisions made powerful people in our major institutions. They argue that "sustainability will never be achieved by leaving those decisions in the hands of a few – both because of their belief in limitless economic production and because their decisions are made at a distance from the communities experiencing the impact of those decisions." What's the answer? In part, it's to change the power dynamics by invoking the rights of communities to determine their futures. The community is that broadest community including the environment, or what Leopold called the land.

Price helped craft State College's Community and Environmental Bill of Rights and Fracking Ban so successfully fought for by GroundswellPA and passed in 72% to 28% landslide. But recently passed legislation that has resulted in Act 13 of the Oil and Gas Law threatens local ordinances to regulate natural gas drilling operations. Will the State College referendum stand? Will the lawsuit against the state by seven Pennsylvania municipalities succeed? Do we need a revolution against what some call a corporate kleptocracy? We'll ask Price these and other questions.

Call in with questions this afternoon from 4-5 pm: (814) 865-9577. You can also join us on Facebook and Twitter as well.

"If there's a new way..."

Yesterday, Megadeth founder Dave Mustaine more or less endorsed Rick Santorum for president (pic at right courtesy of The Atlantic Wire). As of late, he's said he hasn't "endorsed him" but the effect has been kind of endorsement. I've been a Megadeth fan for years. I know Mustaine has converted to Christianity, something I don't find particularly upsetting, but his endorsement of Santorum was very confusing. So I wrote him a letter (also posted to their Facebook page that they have since removed).

So what's the rub? Megadeth's songs include some of the best metal criticisms of political corruption and complicated human-induced environmental problems. Selecting Rock Santorum is more than a little bit confusing. I admit that selecting any major party politician today faces us with with some big problems. But on the environmental front, Santorum has been a major part of what Chris Mooney named "the Republican war on science." It's really too bad.

Their most famous song, "Peace Sells...But Who's Buyin'" says,

If there's a new way
I'll be the first in line
But it better work this time

[...] What do you mean I couldn't be the president of the United States of America? It's still 'We the people' right?

Right or RIGHT? As someone who has worked on sustainability issues now for several years, I can't get how it is going to work this time, especi

Here's my letter...type-o's and all:

Dave,

I can respect your views and find them confusing. It’s too bad you removed my comment. There’s a bigger point here that several people are talking about. We are frankly confused how one of the most seemingly environmentally aware and politically intelligent people we have looked up to can even entertain the idea of voting for Rick Santorum. Well…we might be able to understand it but we don’t really get it.

Before I go on, I want to say that I don’t mean this to be shouting at you. I’m mostly confused and want an explanation. I guess you don’t have to give me one. I’m just one guy who was once a kid who heard “Holy Wars,” “Hangar 18,” and “Five Magics,” and was totally thrilled. I’ve gone on to write the “Heavy Metal” entry for an encyclopedia coming out in the next year, The Encyclopedia of Music and American Culture. Megadeth certainly earned its place in that entry.

On one hand, I get that you are not the person you were when you wrote most of your albums. You’ve led a very public life. Part of that life has been about politics. Seriously, when you did the MTV Rock the Vote stuff in ’92, I thought that was pretty cool. I was 16 and from a politically-minded family.

Unlike some commentors on this thread, I don’t think Megadeth is “just music.” It’s clear that you, like Sepultura, Testament, Xentrix, Nuclear Assault, Kreator, Revocation, Heathen, Forbidden, and some other awesome bands work to raise social consciousness. It’s not dumb kid’s noise. It has a purpose. You’ve always had a purpose…full-fledged aggression mixed with a moral approach to the world that is neither condescending nor authoritarian. I’m sure I’m about the thousandth person who’s written to you to say that lines like from Rust In Peace and Countdown to Extinction played in my mind over and over again. As someone who’s minded politics and the environment, Megadeth serves a special place.

I can’t help but note that Countdown to Extinction came out in 1992. That’s the year of the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. The young girl talking in the song “Countdown to Extinction” is forever linked in my mind with the young girl who spoke at the Rio Summit. I get it. Those are my links and they’re not many other people’s. But I bring it up for a reason. Rick Santorum will be an environmental ruin for this country.

I’ll just give three examples: hamstringing the EPA, climate change, and hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling for natural gas in Pennsylvania. First, Santorum, like too many Republicans these days would like to defund, hamstring, or eliminate the federal Environmental Protection Agency. In a world where corporate influence far outweighs the good work of some religious people or the ability of common people to protect their water, their air, or their children, this is baffling. The EPA is sometimes the only bulwark “we the people” have to protect us from industrial pollution.

Second, Santorum denies climate change. He calls the science behind it “junk science.” That is junk thinking. It is basic chemistry and physics. The trend line from an incredible amount of data – some of it going back tens of millions of years – shows that the earth today is at a particularly warm period. More importantly, the earth is warmer than it has ever been during human history. That warming trend, which is continuing and accelerating, is inextricably linked to the release of carbon dioxide and methane from humans burning fossil fuels. The only “junk” out there on this comes from the fossil fuel industry and the politicians – like Rick Santorum – who have enslaved themselves to those industries. [See point #1 about the EPA above.] I find it interesting that you would vote for Santorum given what you wrote in “Dawn Patrol”:

Pretending not to notice

How history had forbode us

With the greenhouse in effect

Our environment was wrecked

That’s a pretty clear warning to me. Are you backing away from that? Santorum isn’t the only Republican with this view by any means but he is the most vocal of the four left standing.

Third, Pennsylvania where I live and where Santorum is from has been undergoing a natural gas rush. Santorum recently told a crowd in Oklahoma that there is “nothing” to worry about. In case you don’t know, two new technologies have been put together to get at massive gas reserves in shale beds. We can drill thousands of feet into the earth and turn the drill bit and go horizontally for thousands of feet. Then, having bored a hole around a mile down and a mile across (give or take depending on conditions) the well is hydraulically fractured. By blasting a mixture of fresh water, some sand, and a cancerous (literally) cocktail of biocides, lubricants, and other chemicals into the earth at upwards of 14,000 pounds per square inch, the shale bed can by stimulated into releasing gas back up the well bore to the well head. People refer to this process as fracking. It is an environmental and community health ruin.

I have met people from across the state now who can’t drink their well water because of these processes. Some of them can set their taps on fire. That’s cool a couple of times. But it’s not cool to have to have a gas ventilation system set up in your house because your water leaks so much methane your house could explode. I know people who have been ripped off. Cattle, dogs, horses, cats, chickens, song birds, and fish have all been killed by fracking. I know people whose property value has plummeted 85% because of damage to their water. Little kids waking up in the middle of the night with their noses bleeding and doctors reporting that kids have elevated levels of toxins in their bodies. People losing hair. Headaches. Just wait for the cancer clusters. Just two weeks ago, Carl Stiles killed himself because he had become so ill from what his family is certain was fracking pollution.

Santorum called this all “the boogey man.” He said, “Ooh, all this bad stuff's going to happen, we don't know all these chemicals and all this stuff, What's going to happen? Let me tell you what's going to happen, nothing's going to happen." Call me uncouth, but as a Pennsylvanian, that’s garbage. The people of Dimock, Pennsylvania lost their water from gas drilling. When the state government and the company stopped providing that water who stepped in? First it was neighboring communities. But then the EPA came and has supplied the water. Once again, we are back at number one.

So I know you said you admired Santorum for his going back to be with his kid. As a father myself, I too am touched by that. Every day that I get to spend with a healthy and happy boy is a day worth more than my life. And I mean no disrespect to you when I say that it affects you differently than it does me given your family history and your father’s negligence as you’ve written about it. Santorum’s devotion to fatherhood is admirable. And certainly, given your vocal embrace of Christianity, his faith is too.

But why does it stop with his son? What about the son getting ill from fracking operations or the arsenic in his water from mountain top removal in West Virginia or Kentucky? What about the boys and girls exposed to the pollution of coal and gas power plants around this nation that create cancer clusters and literally billions of dollars in medical treatment for human-caused industrial disease. It’s no accident that asthma, leukemia, and other awful illnesses proliferate near, downwind, and downstream of polluting industries. Why isn’t Santorum a father for those people and protect them as much as he would protect his own children?

If you’re still reading this I appreciate it. Yeah. My first reaction was pretty strong. I felt like maybe never buying another Megadeth album. Maybe it would be boycott time. But I guess that I, like a lot of other people, can’t square this circle. We just want to understand.

See, it’s not that I ain’t kind. I’m just not his kind. And, like you, I still believe that it’s all for we the people…not we the corporations. If there's a new way, I'll be the first in line. Rick Santorum is not the new way.

He should never be president. Ever.

Peter Buckland

Getting from Here to There

Do you ever feel like sustainability-minded folks are just singing the Talking Heads song, "Road to Nowhere"? I do. Derrick Jensen maybe says it best in an article at Orion: "The most common words I hear spoken by any environmentalists anywhere are, We’re f***ed." We hear it all the time. But as Jensen also says, we can step out of this defeat and actually do something. In doing, there is hope.

Today's show is all about hope in action. Our three guests are journeying to change our collective journey. First, Jon Brockopp will join us to talk about his pending bike ride to Washington, D.C. - 200 miles in 4 days. Along with two other men, he will be stopping at congregations, colleges and CSAs along the way to spread the word about Pennsylvania Interfaith Power and Light and our moral responsibility to respond to climate change.

Then we will be joined by Eileen Flanagan who is part of the Earth Quaker Action Team, who is part of the Green Walk for Jobs and Justice. They are walking 200 miles across Pennsylvania from Philadelphia to the PNC Bank headquarters in Pittsburgh to call on PNC to end its financing of mountain top removal of coal. George Lakey of EQAT says, "We can green our money." How?

Finally, Jason Bell will come on the show. Jason has initiatiated the Tour de Frack, "an action oriented way to explore rural communities and the effects unconventional gas drilling from the saddle of your bike." It is a two week bike tour from July 14-July 28, 2012 from Butler, Pennsylvania to Washington DC along the Great Allegheny Passage and C&O towpath.

Given my own ride last year from Pine Grove Mills to Harrisburg to accomplish a similar goal, I had to have these people on the show. They are people putting the rubber to the road. Step by step and pedal stroke by pedal stroke they are walking or riding on a road to a better future. As Michael Bagdes-Canning of Tour de Frack says, "We have a democracy problem." One way to better our democracy is to help the conversation and call on others to be accountable and do the right thing.

In honor of all three of our guests today, I leave you with a Wendell Berry poem Badges-Canning quotes in this video.

"The Peace of Wild Things"

When despair for the world grows in me and I wake in the night at
the least sound in fear of what my life and my children's lives may be,
I go and lie down where the wood drake
rests in his beauty on the water, and the great heron feeds.
I come into the peace of wild things who do not tax their lives with forethought
of grief. I come into the presence of still water.
And I feel above me the day-blind stars waiting with their light.
For a time I rest in the grace of the world, and am free.
— Wendell Berry

There is great hope in such people.

As always, listen in on your local dial at 90.7 fm or stream us online. Call in with questions or comments: (814) 865-9477. You can also join us on Facebook and get involved with a conversation about this show and other sustainabilty topics.

Faces in Gasland

Come to Mark Schmerling's event depicting the the effects of shale gas drilling in Pennsylvania on March 22nd. He will briefly trace his immersion into the environmental documentary field, and then discuss his Marcellus images and the stories of the people in the photos.

To learn more, visit Sierra Club Moshannon's website.

Governor Slashes Science, Sierra Club's Jeff Schmidt Swings Back

State Impact's Scott Detrow reports Gov. Tom Corbett's (R-PA) administration has gutted funding for research on the environmental impacts of Marcellus Shale natural gas development. Despite numerous statements by Corbett, DEP director Mike Krancer, and Lt. Governor Jim Cawley that they make decisions "based on science" or "based on fact," the picture painted here seems to black out the science.

Detrow writes that Depart­ment of Con­ser­va­tion and Nat­ural Resources Sec­re­tary director Richard Allan has overseen "sig­nif­i­cant changes" to state sci­en­tific research projects exam­in­ing nat­ural gas drilling and cli­mate change impacts. "Last month, Allan slashed the bud­get of the agency’s wildlife research pro­gram by nearly 70 per­cent...with­out consulting the four-person staff respon­si­ble for vet­ting sub­mit­ted pro­pos­als and rec­om­mend­ing them for funding." According to the article, DCNR attrib­utes the cuts were caused by declin­ing rev­enue in the con­ser­va­tion program’s fund. However, DCNR's statement released no criteria for why one program was cut over another.

Under the Rendell administration in 2010, four studies on gas drilling impacts and climate change impacts were funded. This coming year: only one. Despite the endorsement of the Wild Resource Conservation Board to fund two studies on gas, two on climate, and eight others in October. Then the rules abruptly changed, the budget was gutted, seventeen studies were slashed. Only one natural gas study remained.

It appears that political maneuvering played a key role. Detrow reports,

In 2010, nine of the rec­om­mended research projects exam­ined the impact of cli­mate change, and four looked at nat­ural gas drilling’s impli­ca­tions. Before the board voted, a staffer rep­re­sent­ing Hutchin­son at the meet­ing read a state­ment express­ing “deep con­cern and reser­va­tion” about the rec­om­mended projects. “In the past the [con­ser­va­tion pro­gram] has sup­ported projects that sought to restore a vari­ety of plant and non-game species to their habi­tats. It seems to me that this theme is not being car­ried for­ward,” Hutchin­son had writ­ten. “Instead, it appears to me, that the com­mit­tee is being asked to rec­om­mend projects for fund­ing that…[are] based upon advanc­ing spe­cific pub­lic pol­icy agen­das rather than one that is more neu­tral and sci­en­tific based.” Hutchin­son said he was refer­ring to the cli­mate change projects.

Patrick Hen­der­son rep­re­sented Repub­li­can Sen­a­tor Mary Jo White at the meet­ing. He had a prob­lem with the projects, too. The offi­cial min­utes, approved by the board dur­ing its 2011 meet­ing, read, “Mr. Hen­der­son expressed con­cern about nat­ural gas extrac­tion being iden­ti­fied as an envi­ron­men­tal impact.” He said, “these projects may not war­rant this grant money,” ref­er­enc­ing sour­ing bud­get conditions.

Hen­der­son, of course, went on to become Gov­er­nor Corbett’s point man on energy and drilling poli­cies. As Energy Exec­u­tive, Hen­der­son sat on Corbett’s 2011 Mar­cel­lus Shale Advi­sory Com­mis­sion, and wrote the bulk of its final report.

Why does any of this matter? Detrow writes about the threat to scarlet tanager (pictured at right). These migratory songbirds require deep woods to thrive. As more well pads go in, there is less habitat for the birds. The 8-acre-per-well impact that's often quoted for Marcellus wells has a much larger impact in the forests. Including roads and all of the encroachment factors involved, the total impact can be 31 acres, roughly 1/3 of a kilometer per well. When you multiply that by the hundreds of wells in forests now and the thousands to come, the impacts become enormous. Wildlife is and will suffer.

The Response

The Sierra Club of Pennsylvania's Jeff Schmidt has come out swinging. In a press release today, he is quoted as saying, "Governor Corbett and DEP Secretary Mike Krancer repeatedly say they want sound science to dictate environmental policy in Pennsylvania. However, we have now learned that they are willing to slash funding for necessary scientific research to determine potential environmental harm for which their policies could be responsible. It is clear that the Corbett administration's political goals to promote gas drilling trump their claim to support sound science. In fact, the inconvenient reality is that while gas drilling is ruining drinking water supplies and wildlife habitat, the Corbett administration engages in a cover up of the true impacts."

The press release goes on to cite instances where DEP covered up a Cabot Oil and Gas spill in Lenox, Pennsylvania and ruled the company could cease supplying fresh water to the town of Dimock despite having been found to have polluted the town's water. To compound issues with the directorship of DCNR, earlier this week the Executive Director of the Conservation and Natural Resources Advisory Committee (CNRAC), who provides oversight of DCNR's oil and gas drilling activities on Pennsylvania's public forests and parks, was fired.

"The pattern of the Corbett administration's environmental policies is becoming more apparent every day," Schmidt continued. "We call on the General Assembly to halt the rush to drill in Pennsylvania, and to scrap legislation such as HB 1950, which was written by the Corbett administration. It is time our elected officials represented the people of Pennsylvania, not the out-of-state drillers."

We suspect that in the next 24 hours, the blogosphere will light up with this news as will other environmental organizations like PennFuture, PennEnvironment, and others.

Clean Air Council attacks Pennsylvania's DEP over Air Quality from Shale Gas Operations

This was just sent out from the Clean Air Council:

The Inside Story
Pennsylvania SIP Fight Escalates
Posted: January 6, 2012

Pennsylvania's top environmental official is asking EPA to dismiss activists' petition that claims the state is violating its own air quality plan for meeting agency air standards by offering streamlined permits for hydraulic fracturing operations in the state -- claims the state strongly rejects.

The fight over Pennsylvania's state implementation plan (SIP) highlights long-running concerns from environmentalists about emissions from fracking operations in states on the Marcellus Shale. The activist group Clean Air Council's (CAC) challenge to the SIP, which outlines how the state intends to comply with EPA air standards, includes claims that Pennsylvania failed to provide adequate notice and access to information on “minor” source Clean Air Act permits for drilling operations in the state -- permits that activists say are inadequate to control emissions.

Michael Krancer, secretary of Pennsylvania's Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), sent a Jan. 5 letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson saying the petition “lacks merit. . . . EPA should promptly dismiss this without any further action.” It adds that the state and EPA “should not be unnecessarily distracted by this contrived and irrational petition from the important and serious work our agencies perform.”

The letter adds that DEP “has expanded the public participation process in appropriate instances to include public meetings and public hearings,” and asserts that it is in full compliance with its latest SIP -- which the state submitted to EPA but which the agency has yet to approve. EPA-approved SIPs outline enforceable air pollution reduction policies and mandates. The 2008 SIP changes include a controversial “streamlined” minor source permit process that has resulted in inadequate permitting of Marcellus Shale drilling sources, CAC charged in its Nov. 28 petition asking EPA to find that Pennsylvania fails to comply with its SIP. The SIP fight comes in the midst of CAC and EPA opposition to a related Pennsylvania DEP drilling guidance that seeks to set a first-time distance threshold for when drilling emissions sources must be combined, or aggregated, for permit purposes, likely expanding the definition of minor sources.

Now CAC is quickly criticizing Krancer's letter to EPA, issuing a Jan. 6 statement that says, “It is clear from the public outcry that a 'streamlined' process is inappropriate for Marcellus Shale 'minor source' permits.” The statement adds that the minor source permit hearing Krancer announced was scheduled only after 60 citizens filed requests. “Citizens should not have to force a public hearing on every compressor station because the notice and access to information is insufficient.”

CAC also points out that because EPA has not approved the SIP changes, the streamlined permit provisions are unlawful. “Further, the revision frustrates the underlying purpose of public notice and comment periods and does not meet Clean Air Act requirements. The council expects that EPA will deny the revision and force Pennsylvania to revoke its 'streamlined' permitting program.”

Jay Duffy, Esq.
Staff Attorney
Clean Air Council

As this story carries on, we'll be sure to follow it.

Aerial Footage of Marcellus Wells in Northern PA

I watched this today, and I thought of two things. First, what is the value of natural gas? Second, what is the value of the land?



We can get into all of the economic bean counting that compares the total economic value of natural gas and its services. Then we can compare them to the total revenue brought in by people traveling to the land where gas drilling will take place, the revenue of farms, the dollars saved with clean air and water, and the economic value of active farms. Environmental economists can and will spar with each other, with energy economists, and supply chain economists, and so on about the best way to account for natural gas's economic value and the land's value. Doing all of that will require a lot of bean counting, future discounting, statistical modeling, and more to assess its utility or instrumental value. That is no doubt useful for economists and politicians seeking to make a case in a marketed world built on numbers rather than notions like beauty.

When I write value here, I don't just mean the cost in dollars and cents of a volume of natural gas and the taxable value of the land. By land here, I mean what people think of as "the environment" that is in some way productive in and for its own right and has not been mechanically developed...at least not overtly. What's its value? By value I mean something more than revenue. By value I mean its intrinsic worth to itself, its subjective worth in experience or reverence, and its worth as a common thing outside of dollars and cents.

Think of Aldo Leopold, one of the fathers of American conservation, who wrote about this better than anyone. In A Sand County Almanac he wrote:

All ethics so far evolved rest upon a single premise: that the individual is a member of a community of interdependent parts. His instincts prompt him to compete for his place in that community, but his ethics prompt him also to co-operate (perhaps in order that there may be a place to compete for).

The land ethic simply enlarges the boundaries of the community to include soils, waters, plants, and animals, or collectively: the land.

This sounds simple: do we not already sing our love for and obligation to the land of the free and the home of the brave? Yes, but just what and whom do we love? Certainly not the soil, which we are sending helter-skelter downriver. Certainly not the waters, which we assume have no function except to turn turbines, float barges, and carry off sewage. Certainly not the plants, of which we exterminate whole communities without batting an eye. Certainly not the animals, of which we have
already extirpated many of the largest and most beautiful species.

A land ethic of course cannot prevent the alteration, management, and use of these 'resources,' but it does affirm their right to continued existence, and, at least in spots, their continued existence in a natural state.

Ethics and morality are a question of value. So I ask you now a third question in light of Leopold and that video: Can we value natural gas and the land in a way that balances our demand for gas with the notion that we ought to cooperate with the land?

I posted a version of this question over on Facebook page. It prompted my friend Aaron to say, "What an absolutely ghastly video!!! Sickening. We belong to the land, its value is us."

What about you?

Infrared footage of air pollution from gas drilling

"A Chesapeake Bay Foundation infrared video investigation of natural gas drilling and processing sites in Pennsylvania, Maryland, and West Virginia found invisible air pollution rising from almost three quarters of them." Learn more at the Chesapeake Bay Foundation.

Marcellus Protest 2011 Redux

On Friday November 18th, ralliers came together to demand change on the cost of doing business in the Marcellus shale and celebrate State College's passage of the Community Bill of Rights and Fracking Ban on November 4th. Read the storythe Centre Daily Times, WJAC TV, WTAJ TV, and follow-up story was printed online at The Daily Collegian.

We include here video excerpts courtesy of ScavengerhuntPA, a citizen finding unplugged wells across the commonwealth.

Responsible Drilling Alliance member Barb Jarmoska at Old Main...


..and at the Penn Stater outside of the Marcellus Summit.


Nathan Sooy of Clean Water Action.


Jeff Schmidt of Sierra Club Pennsylvania.


Pittsburgh councilman, Dough Shields.


Sustainability Now's Peter Buckland reads the letter we delivered to Penn State President Rodney Erickson, the Board of Trustees, and the staff at the Marcellus Center for Outreach and Research. Read the letter here.


We will follow up with President Erickson's response when we receive one.

Groundswells Matter

The past week has been remarkable for environmental sustainability and energy.

On the local level, the State College Borough passed a Community Bill of Rights that includes a fracking ban. The referendum was passed nearly 3:1. This was in large part due to the work of Groundswell PA led by Braden Crooks and our team at work on the ground with EC3 and Sierra Club Moshannon.

On the national level, President Obama has delayed the Keystone XL Pipeline which would connect the dirty tar sands oil fields to Texas refineries and shipping. Last Sunday, 12,000 people surrounded the White House to show people want something different - less carbon, less pollution, more health, and more sustainability. People from the Centre Region have been involved in these issues. In September, Toni Gripp Brink went to Washington to join Bill McKibben, Josh Fox, Naomi Klein, James Hansen, and hundreds of others to protest the pipeline and the tar sands. Last weekend, Krystn Madrine of the Sustainable Kitchen went with her daughter to be in the human chain surrounding the White House. Obama landed in his helicopter during the event. It must have been quite a sight.

Perhaps Groundswells are on the rise. Occupy movements. Surrounding the White House. The recent Ohio referendum revoking the anti-union work of Ohio's governor. What's next?

$4.4 million in funding for "alternative" fuels

The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection has granted $4.4 million for "alternative" fuels. They've granted $15,600 for a solar electric charging station project in Dauphin County, $100,000 for biodiesel, $700,000 for electric cars, and about $3.6 million for natural gas related projects. Read their press release here.

The electric infrastructure grant of about $240,000 will go to Pittsburgh Regional Clean Cities for the Energy Corridor 376 project to establish 45 electric vehicle charging stations along Interstate 376 and surrounding areas. The pollution savings from electric vehicles are impressive. Also, "350 Green LLC will receive $450,000 for the development of the state’s electric vehicle infrastructure. This project will include the construction of approximately 20 Level III fast-charging stations and 72 charging stations."

DEP reports "Berks County Intermediate Unit will receive $100,000 to support the continued use of B20 biodiesel in its fleet."

On the natural gas front, several projects will receive grants. They include switching or augmenting several diesel fleets to natural gas fleets and aiding the construction of compressed natural gas stations.

“These projects are terrific for the state’s economy and the environment,” DEP Secretary Mike Krancer said. “We have an available, abundant, domestic, economical and clean-burning source of energy under our feet, and these projects put those resources to good use.”

In the world of sustainability, is this what you've envisioned for switching to alternative and sustainable fuels? What would you award money to for alternative energy sources and more sustainable use?

The Final Report: Citizen's Take Marcellus Development Seriously

The Citizen's Marcellus Shale Commission (CMSC) released their final report today. The commission, headed by 16 people from different social and economic sectors and representing diverse interests including the League of Women's Voters, Clean Water Action, the Housing Alliance of Pennsylvania, and others, held 5 hearings across the state in August and September. Unlike the governor's Marcellus Shale Advisory Commission, the Citizen's version was never accused of being an industry front group.

Most briefly stated, Pennsylvanians believe that Marcellus development is being done wrong and it needs to be done better. From water contamination to truck traffic, wildlife encroachment to health and medical concerns from air pollution, and corporate profiteering and a lack of government oversight, Pennsylvania citizens told the commission that they expect better.

The commission compiled, reviewed, and analyzed comments from 400 citizens and came up with many recommendations. These include standards like setting up a severance tax on the industry, placing a moratorium on new drilling in unleased state forest land and no drilling in state parks, and "perform a comprehensive cumulative impact analysis of existing and likely proposed industrial development."

Many regulations need to be broadened, deepened, and toughened. Some include increasing the distance that wells can be from schools to 3,000 feet from occupied structures and 5,000 from schools, child care programs, and hospitals. Others extend to waste water treatment, one going so far as to recommend eliminating the use of "toxic chemicals in all hydraulic fracturing operations." That's a tall order but one that will no doubt please many citizens concerned with the compound threats to public health and environmental integrity. Broadly speaking, the report recommends adoption of "best practice" measures across the board to minimize pollution and maximize retention of gas and water.

Three recommendations stuck out to me in particular. The first protects local home rule, including enacting "local ordinances on zoning...should not be abridged." Given some recent dust-ups in Warren, Mount Pleasant, Rush Township, and State College on issues of home rule, zoning, regulation, or community bills of rights, this comes at an interesting time. [Full disclosure: Peter Buckland of Sustainability Now is involved with promoting the State College Community Bill of Rights.]

The second and third are linked. Second, "Make industry pay its fair share...Ensure proper bonding and clean-up requirements are in place for all well sties and facilities, with an escrow fund established for unintended consequences to public health and the environment." Second, they recommend a "health registry and data base to track illnesses in drilling communities, use pre-existing data gathered in other states where appropriate. Adequate funding must be supplied to the PA Department of Health to cover the costs of creating a health registry." Put semantic battles about "unintended consequences" aside for just a moment and consider what this means. This would change something about environmental and public enforcement that has lacked in Pennsylvania for some time.

It seems something like this:

Excraction industries have harmed public health and the environment before.
Extraction industries have not paid their fair share for that harm.
Harming industries should pay for their damage.
The Marcellus natural gas industries, like other extractive industries, will harm public health and the environment.
Before they get going any further, they should be paying for those public health and environmental harms directly and through investment.

The report actually places the financial burden on the gas industry. It's not quite the precautionary principle, but it is a step toward the actual protection of people and their places instead of corporate profits and the lobbyists walking the halls in Harrisburg or manning the governor's commission.

This blog has only scratched the surface. I definitely recommend reading the general and specific recommendations by going to this link.

My question is, Will citizens take this to their supervisors, commissioners, legislators, and the governor for better action? Will you?

Dairy Farm Protests in Butler County

The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reports that Butler County residents are protesting drilling operations at a dairy farm (pic at right from Marcellus Protest).

They report:

"There's no way this drilling can contaminate our milk," Larry Wendereusz, general manager of the dairy operating facility, said in an phone interview Friday. "Our milk is tested for everything ... we run all kinds of tests."

Members of the advocacy group Marcellus Outreach Butler believe otherwise. They chanted slogans and complained that the planned underground hydraulic drilling will put crops, livestock and milk at risk for contamination. The group gathered in front of the drilling rig that sits next to the Marburger property along Mars-Evans City Road.

"They're not being a good neighbor," Alex Stehman of Saxonburg said about the farm. She said she no longer buys Marburger milk in an attempt to send a message to the farm's owners. "Organic farmers are more responsible."

On last week's show we touched this issue briefly. There are some farmers leasing their land while many organic farmers allege their operations are threatened by gas operations' because of possible groundwater contamination, air pollution, methane migration into wells, and other issues. But gas companies and some farmers argue these worries are unfounded and possibly hysterical.

In 2010, 28 cows were quarantined after exposure to fracking fluid. This year a Chesapeake Energy well blew out in Leroy Township sent thousands of gallons of frack water into a nearby stream for at least 12 hours. Pennsylvania's Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has said that the stream was not compromised and fined Chesapeake over $1 million. DEP said:

“It is important to me and to this administration that natural gas drillers are stewards of the environment, take very seriously their responsibilities to comply with our regulations, and that their actions do not risk public health and safety or the environment,” DEP Secretary Mike Krancer said. “The water well contamination fine is the largest single penalty DEP has ever assessed against an oil and gas operator, and the Avella tank fire penalty is the highest we could assess under the Oil and Gas Act. Our message to drillers and to the public is clear.”

Protesters have some warrant given some recent history. But what are the chances that cow's milk could be contaminated with gas drilling pollutants? Does anyone even have this data?

Slowing Down the Marcellus Information Orbiter

MARCELLUS SHALE.

These two words have changed Pennsylvania. For most people paying attention to news in the Mid-Atlantic these days they evoke a host of other words and images. Natural gas. Water. Energy security. Bridge fuel. Pollution. Fracking and hydraulic fracturing. Flammable faucets. Gasland. Jobs. Truck traffic. Industry. Environment.

Tracking it all can be like riding an Orbiter ride (pictured at right). Up becomes down, moving keeps you in one place, and when you try to focus on something your vision is too blurred because it's all shifted.

I still remember the first time I heard about the Marcellus Shale formation and natural gas. Four years ago a friend of mine came over for dinner. He told me that his brothers were involved in new natural gas drilling. A bunch of companies were leasing farmland across Pennsylvania farmers and other large landowners seemed eager to make money from gas, he said. The process to get the gas required injecting water into wells at high pressure was environmentally sound. It all seemed pretty incredible and he was really excited.

Pennsylvania would see more financially stable farmers and rural landowners. Increased energy security would from clean-burning natural gas. It could help free us from the coal- and oil-dependent industries, from transportation that accelerates climate change, and bring us to a less carbon-intense economy. Maybe it would even provide a bridge to renewable energy.

At the center of this story in Pennsylvania were Penn State University and Range Resources. In December 2007, Range reported successfully horizontally drilling, hydraulically fracturing, and extracting natural gas from the the Marcellus Shale bed ~5,000 - 7,000 feet below the surface (watch this animation/ map at right). The five wells they reported on were in southwestern Pennsylvania. One month later, Penn State professor of geology Terry Engelder calculated the Marcellus Shale formation Range had successfully “fracked” held between 168 trillion and 516 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, gas that existing technology made accessible. The rest is history.

Today, the Marcellus Shale play is the biggest new economic game in Pennsylvania. Former governor Ed Rendell called it "the golden goose." Just a few years ago there were a handful of Marcellus wells. As of May 2011, there were over 4,500. All of this gas development has brought incredible changes to the state.

Each well is a roughly $4 million-dollar affair to drill and frack and employs a small fleet of people to set up. It brings some economic benefits to the hosting municipalities and, for some landowners, large sums of money. Hotel, restaurant, and bar owners in Williamsport and other towns have made a fortune. Rental property owners have made serious money renting houses, apartments, and townhouses. And of course there is all that gas people use to heat their homes, burn for their stoves, and industry and transportation uses for fuel. Former Governor Tom Ridge stated the position clearly on The Colbert Report: “Pennsylvania is sitting on top of something that I think could lead a renaissance in America with regard to energy.” It hasn't been called the Saudi Arabia of natural gas for no reason.

Yet this is not just a win. Pennsylvania is still the only state in the nation without an impact fee or severance tax on the industry despite overwhelming public opinion calling for one. Governor Corbett has proposed an impact fee but it has been received skeptically by Republican and Democratic legislators, environmental groups, and county officials.

Well blowouts and truck crashes have spilled tens of thousands of gallons of toxic "produced water" into streams, fields, and onto lawns. Methane has migrated into well water causing hundreds if not thousands of families to require water be provided for them in external water tanks often called “water buffaloes.” People are reporting new ailments. Open air pits of produced water and compressor stations release volatile organic compounds (VOCs) known to cause and exasperate lung conditions. The land impacts from well pads disrupt habitat. At an EPA air quality hearing last week, several people testified to that their lives have been ruined by the gas industry and that they are treated like occupants of a “third world nation.”

On one side the Marcellus Shale Coalition, an industry-sponsored group tends to paint the picture as rosy and a big win. On the other environmentalists and community health advocates say that Marcellus development is a disaster of unprecedented proportions unfolding across the state. As you know, we've been quite critical of Marcellus development on Sustainability Now (archive here). But what’s real and what’s spin? What’s scientifically valid and what’s not? Who’s pulling strings and who should be? How the game changer going to change even more with a possible rush into the Utica Shale?

Between public outrcy, job creation, environmental and public health fears, corporate influence, the blogosphere, and who knows how many stories that the Marcellus information spin is a rapidly accelerating Orbiter ride. It's disorienting. We hope our guest today will help us slow down the spin.

Dave Yoxtheimer is a geologist the Penn State Marcellus Center for Outreach and Research (MCOR). Yoxtheimer is a certified geologist who has worked on water projects across Pennsylvania for several years and today works on several MCOR projects, specifically those that deal with environmental impacts.His work has included developing better practices for water withdrawal, recycling, disposal, and treatment.

MCOR has been set up to provide education and research initiative on unconventional gas plays like the Marcellus formation. They are set up to “serve state agencies, elected and appointed officials, communities, landowners, industry, environmental groups and other stakeholders.” Their seminar series on Marcellus Shale have featured former DEP Secretary John Hanger, the prospect of developing the Utica Shale, a larger and deeper shale play in North America, and produced water treatment.

We will be asking Yoxtheimer about the current and future state of Pennsylvania’s human and non-human residents and Marcellus and Utica Shale.

The show airs today at 4 pm on The Lion 90.7. You can stream the show online. As always, feel free to call (814) 865-9577 to comment and ask a question. This week we will also have our email open so that you can send questions to sustainabilitynowradio@gmail.com
***
Update: You can listen to the show at this link.

A wellspring for Groundswell Pa

Last week we had Braden Crooks of Groundswell PA on the show. They're arguing for an Environmental Bill of Rights and they are filming the whole movement.

Check it out:



Contribute here to help them document it.

Josh Fox at Shale Gas Outrage

Gasland director Josh Fox all called on the Shale Gas Outrage crowd last Wednesday to keep gas drilling out of the Delaware River Basin. Having just been arrested for civil disobedience in Washington, D.C. over tar sands oil and the proposed Keystone XL pipeline (see here and here) he asked people to confront the Delaware River Basin Commission on October 21st and demand a basin-wide fracking ban. He distributed the DRBC's phone number to the crowd, some of whom called DRBC on the spot. You can call them at (609) 883-9500. If push comes to shove, he believes people are going to have to be civilly disobedient and be arrested. Watch his speech here.



We want to know, do you think that fracking is worthy of civil disobedience? Should people pursue the regular channels of regulation and legislation? Or is this all what former Governor Ridge called "phony hysteria"?

People mix hope, rage, and resolve at Shale Gas Outrage

Yesterday, about 1,000 people attended the Shale Gas Outrage demonstration in Philadelphia. The events was convened as counter-voice to the Marcellus Shale Coalition's Shale Gas Insight conference for industry.

Individuals, community groups, and established organizations joined organizers Protecting Our Waters, Food & Water Watch, Marcellus Protest, and others to call for changes to the way gas drilling is proceeding in Pennsylvania. People joined in chants of "Shut them down!" and "Ban fracking now!"

Meanwhile inside, Chesapeake Energy CEO Aubrey McClendon derided the demonstrators as "extremists" and former Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge, who also headed the Marcellus Shale Coalition, called environmental concerns "phony hysteria." But former Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell shot back in his own speech to the Shale Gas Insight attendees, saying that they needed to step up and pay a severance tax and that people's concerns over clean air, clean water, and health were legitimate.

Outside, speakers shared a mixture of fear, hope, and calls to action. Pittsburgh Councilman Doug Shields riled up the crowd by highlighting Pittsburgh's unanimous vote to ban hydraulic fracturing within the city. Several speakers, including Delaware River Keeper Tracy Carluccio, Al Appleton, and Gasland director Josh Fox all called on the crowd to keep gas drilling out of the Delaware River Basin.

Fox, having just been arrested for civil disobedience in Washington, D.C. over tar sands oil and the proposed Keystone XL pipeline (see here and here) implored people to descend on the Delaware River Basin Commission on October 21st to demand that they ban fracking in the basin. He distributed the DRBC's phone number to the crowd, some of whom called DRBC on the spot. You can call them at (609) 883-9500. If push comes to shove, he believes people are going to have to be civilly disobedient and be arrested. Without civil disobedience, he and other said, blacks would still be riding in the back of the bus and women wouldn't be voting.

Whether this is hysteria or legitimate, people attending were very concerned. Here are four of them.

Tony Ruggiero is from Texas. His 10-acre $300,000 Texas property has almost completely lost its value because of gas operations.



Nathan Sooy of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania is a member of Clean Water Action.



Eric Weldman works for Food & Water Watch. They are asking people to call President Obama on October 13th to change federal policy on hydraulic fracturing.



Gary Thornbloom is the head of the Sierra Club's Moshannon chapter in central Pennsylvania. They are calling for a moratorium on hydraulic fracturing.



Where do you stand?

Ban? Moratorium? Acceleration? Just get informed and get involved.

How is your community handling natural gas development? What would you like to do about it?

It seems that the conversation in the halls of government in Pennsylvania has been controlled by gas industries and those who profit from natural gas development. Where has the community voice been in the scale and pace of this "boom"?

Whether you want a ban, a moratorium, more drilling, or aren't sure what ought to be done, it might be a good idea to get involved and deliberate with your fellow citizens. Events like this one in Williamsport might be your ticket to understanding the current conditions and acting responsibly in your community and with other communities.

This is a democracy right? Then be a citizen and get involved.

An Environmental Bill of Rights for State College, PA

On Tuesday August 30th at 11 am, Braden Crooks of Groundswell will be talking to press at Schlow Memorial Library about the Environmental Bill of Rights appearing on the popular ballot in State College, PA this November 8th.
Yesterday, he wrote the following to supporters:

If passed, a Community Environmental Bill of Rights and Natural Gas Drilling Ban will mark a dramatic turning point in the operations, governance, scope and sovereignty of the Borough of State College. By recognizing the environment as something other than just property, Environmental Rights alter the legal perception of our environment in a way that has remained unchanged in the history of Western Civilization, until now. Local Rights, like the right to Local Self-Government, alter the role of a local government in America from a tertiary role behind the state, to a Primary Democratic Institution, capable of empowering its citizens to make decisions about what can and cannot happen within the boundaries of their community. Finally, we will ban the commercial extraction of Natural Gas within the borough; a preemptive and proactive measure, designed to ensure urban drilling cannot occur in the Utica Shale under State College and meant as a powerful demonstration of the kind of decisions our community is now capable of making.

If you'd like to learn more, you can visit Groundswell's Facebook page here. Better yet, listen to our show on Friday September 9th when we will be talking to Braden Crooks for the whole show and a segment with Iris Marie Bloom from Protecting Our Waters on activism across the state on natural gas development.

What do you think of environmental rights? What are your responsibilities?

Andean fracking? No thank you.

New York Times contributor Stanley Fish is one of America's best known and engaging public academic intellectuals. In yesterday's Times he tackled natural gas development and fracking as seen by residents of Andes, New York (link here). It is both sobering and hopeful.

Fish writes,

Then came the evening’s centerpiece, three-minute prepared statements delivered by townspeople who had signed up in advance. It is often said that the opponents of fracking are mostly second-home-owners and weekenders who selfishly prefer their enjoyment of a bucolic landscape to the needs of the long-termers who came before them. But the speakers who stood up to have their say represented every sector of the population — farmers, small-business owners, real estate agents, six-generation natives, newcomers, artists, musicians.

As different as they were, the message was the same and it was eloquently proclaimed: “What we have here is unique and beautiful.” “We have to take action to keep the town we love.” “We must take our destiny into our own hands.” “Andes could become the model for the country.” One of the speakers was a local and a folksinger. She made up a song on the spot and taught it to everyone. The refrain was “If we work together / Then we can make it better.”

It is striking to read this as a Pennsylvanian where natural gas development has barely been checked by citizens at all and coddled by the legislature, two governors, and what some have called a gutless regulatory bureaucracy and enforcement branch. I don't doubt that people in Andes, New York have seen what's happening in Pennsylvania and reached Fish's conclusion.

There was agreement that regulation wasn’t the answer, first because no regulation could prevent the disasters that come along inevitably with a project this large, and second because the state couldn’t be counted on either to pass or enforce regulations: “I can’t trust an industry that has got itself exempted from the air and clean water act.” The position that emerged at the end of the evening was simple and unequivocal: “You can’t regulate them but you can ban them if you are sophisticated enough legally and if you remain strong and stay the course.” Every statement was greeted with loud applause. One speaker called for a straw poll. “Anyone in favor of fracking?” Not a hand was raised.

“Inspiring” is not a word I usually use, but this evening was inspiring. The devotion to community, the civic-mindedness, the sheer intelligence displayed by everyone who spoke was a more powerful argument for coming to Andes than the beauties and attractions listed by the Post. But the argument will come to nothing, and everything the Post celebrates will be no more, if the rural birthright of Andes is sold for a mess of fracking.

Will Pennsylvanians be so inspired? Will we turn this tide?