Ethics and Extreme Extraction: Local Reflections on Global Issues

By S. Tom Bond, Retired Chemistry Professor & Resident Farmer, Lewis County, WV

Ethics is an increasing issue in unconventional resource extraction.  Taken individually, the issues which have been heard from the beginning have had an ethical component.  The complaints include destruction of aquifers, air pollution, reduction of property values, costs deferred to the public including roads, record room crowding, traffic (including emergency vehicles) held up, mud slides and so on.

These have largely been thought of as individual matters and as a loss to individuals.  They have been shrugged off by business and government, and largely ignored by the general public which feels little involvement and powerless to stop the well funded extraction companies, supported by endless public relations ploys and advertising.

As understanding diffuses (slowly) to the public at large,  and more and more people come to know someone involved, the unifying theme of ethics becomes stronger.  People are not without empathy.

Another slowly dawning awareness was discussed by Professor Garrett Hardin in an article published in Science, the Journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, all the way back in 1968.  This article is well worth the readers time if not familiar with the phrase “tragedy of the commons.” It is the perception that in reality much of the physical world belongs to all of us.  All of us in the present, and all who follow.  Life is short, and while we live and die in the present, we are bound, for our descendant’s sake, to plan for the extended future as far as we can see it.   It is gross incompetence in the use of our minds to ignore that responsibility.  It is ethical bankruptcy.  It is properly the stuff of ethics and religion.  It is a threat to civilization.

Not only has the fossil fuel industry continued trading human lives for profit, but, since it is difficult to convince free people to poison their own water sources or blow up their own backyards, it has increasingly killed democracy in order to keep killing people for profit. is part of of an article titled, ” The Church Should Lead, Not Follow on Climate Justice.”  The author spoke at a conference at Harvard Divinity School, “Spiritual and Sustainable: Religion Responds to Climate Change.” And, in June he will join many global thinkers at a process theology conference on climate change in Claremont, California.  Although his emphasis is on climate change brought about in considerable part by burning fossil fuels, much of the argument applies to other aspects of extreme extraction.

This is once religion and science stand shoulder to shoulder. Science takes time, but is coming. Three quarters of the available studies on the impacts of shale gas development were published in the two years 2013 and 2014. The number of peer reviewed studies doubled between 2011 and 2012 and then doubled again between 2012 and 2013 while in 2014 there were at least 154 peer reviewed studies, according to Brian Davey in an unfavorable book review of a poorly written book.

Global warming is well established and there are thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of scientists working on it.  The various kinds of contamination from mountaintop removal and fracking are being studied also, and doubtless they will be attacked by the greedy in the same way as climate change.  But public knowledge is growing.  Private knowledge, I will call it, of the victims, has always been around. And the public has growing understand of these processes.

One of the older groups, headquartered in San Francisco, has this to say: “The Regeneration Project is an interfaith ministry devoted to deepening the connection between ecology and faith. Our goal is to help people of faith recognize and fulfill their responsibility for the stewardship of creation. We do this through educational programs for clergy and congregations that achieve tangible environmental results and impact public policy.  [We are] committed to a process of personal, institutional, and societal transformation starting at the grassroots level. We believe that addressing environmental concerns from a faith perspective merits our attention because the moral authority that religion carries is the necessary ingredient for wide social and political change.

A very active offshoot of this group is Interfaith Power and Light.  They provide Faith-based resources, such as Earthkeeping, including congregational resources and green sermons; information on climate change science and climate change policy.  They also provide tools to calculate home and congregational carbon footprints and examples of energy efficient improvements.  A database of State incentives for renewables and efficiency is made available.

Interfaith Power and Light is trying to develop awareness of the situation among a wide variety of congregations, many different churches are involved.  The Ohio Interfaith Power and Light is located in Columbus. A page containing their activities this month is located here.

The Presbyterians have the Stewardship of Creation Ministry Team in West Virginia. An affinity group of the Presbytery Mission Committee, the members of the team share concerns for caring for God’s creation. Team members serve the presbytery as educators, motivators, and facilitators of action to protect God’s Creation. They provide a specific “theological foundation” here, and provide specific steps for the congregation to protect the environment.

Another important movement is sponsored by the Appalachian Preservation Project, LLC.  Their philosophy statement includes “As a social enterprise, we apply commercial strategies that are intended to maximize improvements for people and the environment.”

It publishes two blogs, the Appalachian Chronicle and The Barrick Report.  The first provides news on land and water problems, how government and industry affect the ecology, public health and safety of the people of Appalachia, and suggests places people can get help.  The Barrick Report focuses on analysis and reports on emergency management and community preparedness.  This provides insight on local, regional, state and national efforts at disaster preparedness.

Appalachian Preservation Project recently held the Earth Day week conference, “Preserving Sacred Appalachia: Gathering, Acting, and Speaking in Unity.” It was held April 20th and 21st at the St. John’s XXIII Pastoral Center in Charleston, WV.  This conference was sponsored by St. Luke’s UMC in Hickory, N.C.  Partners included the Sierra Club – West Virginia chapter and West Virginia Interfaith Power & Light.

Also, there is comic relief if you look for it hard enough.  At least one such article results from philosophers splitting the same hair too many times, and several that one can smell the oil and gas or coal dust on the money that paid for the article. The industry has plenty of money to pay for many such excursions, of course. The energy industry receives half a trillion dollars in subsidies, world wide.  According to a graph in this article, roughly 70% of the half a trillion is for oil and gas.

This may be considered a payment to destabilize climate, if you think about it. It certainly encourages the use of gasoline and natural gas, to say nothing more about coal!

New Food & Water Watch Report On Social Costs of Fracking

From the Article by Katherine Cirullo, September 27, 2013

Over the past several years, the oil and gas industry has muscled its way into rural America under the promise of providing jobs, boosting the economy and moving the nation into energy independence. The industry has pressured families and farmers into offering up their land in exchange for financial compensation. But, as we now know, this is a troubling trade.

The oil and gas industry’s empty promises have left many communities in the dust with a slew of environmental, health and social consequences to deal with as a result of shale gas development. And, these consequences are sometimes irreparable. Attend a town hall meeting in rural Pennsylvania and you will hear the cry of mothers who fear for the safety of their children, or nurses distraught by what they are seeing in the clinic. It is time our nation’s leaders recognize the full extent of the damage that oil and gas development does.

Food & Water Watch conducted an empirical study of communities located in the epicenter of the natural gas boom – the Marcellus Shale – to measure the social effects of fracking. The Social Costs of Fracking: A Pennsylvania Case Study, compares and analyzes ten years of public data from rural Pennsylvania, beginning in the year 2000 when shale gas development was non-existent, and ending in 2010 when thousands of well pads and rigs spattered the landscape.

The national fracking discourse has largely been dominated by what fracking does to air and water quality – we’ve seen drinking water contaminated with toxic chemicals and we know quite well how detrimental increased methane emissions are to our climate crisis. But, what’s been missing from the discussion are the impacts the natural gas boom has on the social fabric of fracked rural communities. Contrary to what the industry claims, our researchers found that oil and gas development greatly undermines the quality of life for small rural communities and brings added costs to communities.

By analyzing a decade’s worth of state data from before and after Pennsylvania’s shale gas boom, Food & Water Watch’s research team found that shale gas development in heavily fracked Pennsylvania counties, compared with non-fracked Pennsylvania counties, is associated with increased heavy truck traffic accidents, disorderly conduct arrests and cases of sexually transmitted infections.

The report details three main “social costs” associated with the fracking boom in rural Pennsylvania: 
>>> Heavy truck crashes increased 7 percent in heavily-fracked rural Pennsylvania counties and declined 12 percent in unfracked rural counties once fracking began in 2005.
>>> Disorderly conduct arrests associated with substance abuse rose a third more steeply in heavily fracked rural counties after fracking began than in unfracked rural counties.
>>> During the post-fracking period (2005-2010) the number of cases of sexually transmitted infections increased twice as fast in heavily fracked counties as in unfracked counties.
 
Past studies of energy boomtowns in the west have shown that sudden population bulges in small communities put a lot of pressure on an area’s capacity to meet the needs and challenges that come with industrialization. Social scientists have even developed theories to describe this kind of phenomenon, ultimately pointing to how, when out-of-town industry workers move in and out of an area and thus have few social ties or “stakes” within that community, social and economic disruption often ensues. It can strain local service providers and the infrastructure that was not designed for the industrial boom. As we see in the report’s results, oil and gas development in rural, once pastoral communities has compromised the quality of life of many Pennsylvanian communities and industry workers alike.

While this report is a case study of just one heavily fracked state, it is well known that shale gas development is booming in rural and non-rural communities across the United States. That is why it is so important for people everywhere to share this report with local and state decision makers.

Take action by writing a letter to your Legislators and Governor asking them to read our report and consider the facts. Share your stories, express your concerns and show them your support for a ban on this dangerous practice that destroys our air, water, health and the well-being of our communities.  
 
Tell Your Legislators and Governor: Fracking Is Not Worth the Costs to Our Communities