Environmental Risk without Economic Reward
Erin Noonan writes:
When the EPA was created in 1970 , modern high volume hydraulic fracturing technology was non-existent. Due to lack of technology, older methods of natural gas extraction were overlooked by economic enterprises and could not be expanded to a competitive scale. With the passage of the Safe Drinking Water Act in 1974 , the EPA gained control over public water sources, and in turn was able to protect human health against past natural gas extraction’s possible contamination of ground water.
New technology that emerged during the late 1990s created the ability to commercialize and expand natural gas drilling to a previously prohibitive scale. Consequently, federal officials in the Bush Administration began looking for ways to aid in this domestic energy expansion. A 2001 report delivered to the President by the National Policy Energy Development Group recommended that all regulatory actions increasing domestic energy production be taken. This recommendation was later established as law in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 , an act that hoped to ensure economic growth across all levels of society. Growth tactics included the gas company’s exemption from the Safe Water Drinking Act, removing the EPA’s authority over protecting the public against hazardous drill sites.
Immediately following Congress’s decision to pass the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Pennsylvania’s gates flooded with natural gas companies, igniting the explosion of an industry that has sunk its teeth deep into the state’s resources. Pennsylvania legislature made attempts to regulate the water quality surrounding drill sites; however, controversy arose over the federal government’s decision to value economic growth over human health.
This controversy acts as the foundation to environmental justice beliefs. Environmental justice is defined by the EPA as, “the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. It will be achieved when everyone enjoys the same degree of protection from environmental and health hazards and equal access to the decision-making process to have a healthy environment in which to live, learn, and work. .”
In courts, environmental justice became more prevalent during the 1980s. Warren County v. State of North Carolina, in 1981, was one of the first legal actions to consider the fair treatment of lower socioeconomic classes with regards to proximity of hazardous waste locations.
Pennsylvania’s Department of Environmental Protection has come to acknowledge the concept of environmental justice, and has stated that the department is dedicated to ensuring that those located in environmental justice zones will be fully aware of all environmental risks that come along with industry, infrastructure, or other installments in these areas that could pose a threat to human or environmental health. These environmental justice zones are considered areas of the state with populations 20% or more below the poverty line or 30% or more minorities. Due to the exemption of the Safe Water Drinking Act, hydraulic fracturing sites are not considered a risk to either human or environmental health , and therefore do not trigger the notification of the local communities.
Reports analyzing the economic impacts of hydrofracking state that the industry could potentially create 47 billion dollars by the end of the decade; however, what these reports fail to study is whom this revenue directly benefits. The majority of the natural gas industry workforce employs men ages 25-40, who then send their incomes out of state, resulting in local communities taking on all the environmental risk without reaping the economic reward. This semester I will be studying the direct economic impact of local families in environmental justice zones and hydrofracking’s effect on their annual incomes from 2005-2013.
Recent Comments: