Trees Can Be Trees, Or Trees Can be Money: The Holleran's Sugar Bush and the Constitution Pipeline

What makes the destruction of the Holleran family Sugar Bush all the more head-shakingly sad--and predictable--is the profound misunderstanding of in what, as minimum conditions, a 21st century movement for ecological integrity must consist, of what it must mean by "the local is the global, and "the global is the local." 

To be sure, no slogan is worth a tinker's damn until it informs the very bone marrow of our strategy and oxygenates the blood vessels of our resolve. It's thus not surprising that the consequences for things like trees and soil and all of the creatures and biota dependent on their intimate relationship are as predictable as the rasp of chainsaws and diesel engines the moment we accede to a worldview in whose vocabulary "global" and "local" are valued as property and revenue. 

And trees are especially important--to global climate, to animal habitat, to aesthetic experience.

 When they're reduced to commodities whose worth lay not in the integrity of their relationship to human communities, but in the capacity to be exploited and exchanged, we're all in trouble. 

Stop the Tennessee Pipeline, Photo, Wendy Lynne Lee

What, in other words, we forfeit when we accept the worldview of the capitalist--for whom everything and everyone is either an obstacle or a potentially exploitable resource--is the right to be taken seriously when we try to make anything--like maple trees--an exception. We can deny that we accept these ideological premises, but we use the language of "property," and every time we do we signal the extent to which we're either woefully naive about the difference between the defense of property and the defense of an ecology, or we're willing to execute a strategy that, for the zillionth time, the oil and gas, the pipeline, the export industry, and the banks know will fail. 

It's not merely that we forfeit the moral high ground when, for example, we hold up "Stop the Pipeline!" signs for a family whose already tried to negotiate merely to move the right-of-way to protect their own property. 

It's that we forfeit the ground itself insofar as the pipeline company has every reason to believe we'd not be protesting "Stop the Pipeline!" in front of neighbors ready to wave the American flag over "their" piece of the Constitution.  

Tennessee Pipeline Cut. Photo, Wendy Lynne Lee

If, in other words, we're going to defend ecological integrity, the human community--including families like the Hollerans--cannot be our single or even primary measure of value.  After all, the vast majority of such communities--including corporations--are more than willing to sacrifice ecology for property. 

It's just not true that community rights are necessarily consistent with ecological stability, and so long as we continue to defend the first conflating it with the second, we'll not only continue to mistake property value for ecological integrity, in so doing we'll continue to undermine the necessary conditions of our insurgency, namely, a planet that can sustain us.

Let me put this differently: so long as the primary foci of our protests are human beings to the exclusion of the ecologies upon which we're all dependent--whether that unit of value comes in the form of families like the Hollerans or neighborhoods, or corporations, or the state--property will continue to govern how we conceive what's worth defending. 

Truth is, where we human beings think we occupy the undisputed center of what constitutes value, all else can only be assessed in terms of what's useful to us. 

That's what we call "property."

The fossil fuel companies and the pipeliners know this; hell, they embrace it as surely as the sun rises on a denuded hillside. 

They know that if what matters to us is protecting property as property that we're essentially on their team, that everything's about negotiation and compensation.  

And once we're all on the same team, whatever claims protesters might make about "the environment," well, they just don't need to be taken seriously because nobody cares enough to lay siege, be arrested, be arrested en masse, be pepper-sprayed, tear-gassed, beaten, or shot to defend it. 

Negotiation and compensation: what's left to protest other than the money?

116 Environmental Activists killed in one year.

 And that's really it.

That the environment knows no property lines, or that the neighbor's property is just as much a part of the planetary environment as is anyone's, doesn't seem to register in anyone's calculation of value. 

That protesters virtually everywhere but in the U.S. are being murdered to insure the free flow of oil and gas doesn't seem to impact our misplaced confidence. We just don't seem to get it that these are the same companies, and that means we have to take the same risks as all these other brave folks to stop companies willing to spend billions to make more billions.

How do we not get this? The neighbor who waves his "Vote for Trump!" sign in front of a cheery tree-cutting crew is as irrelevant to the fact that the U.S. Constitution helps to facilitate the conversion of ecology into property as is my vote for Bernie Sanders--unless I am willing to take a stand for the integrity of my neighbor's trees--even if he doesn't like it. 

Even if he threatens me.

Even when, as a matter of strategy, we decry the abuse of the laws that govern eminent domain, we concede to the fossil fuel capitalist everything essential for him to win. The central concept of eminent domain is "property," it's central issue the what, when, and who of its disposition as a resource for human use. 

Is what happened to the Hollerans a grotesque abuse of these laws? 

Sure it is. 

Protest FERC, Photo Wendy Lynne Lee

 But that's irrelevant insofar as the family had already conceded to Williams precisely what empowered the company to take their land and mow down their sugar bush, namely, that trees are property, that what's needed is the right compensation for property loss. Once the Hollerans agreed to the terms of this "debate" over the where of the pipeline and the exchange value of the lost trees, they forfeited the right to defend the trees as trees. 

For example, 

Cathy Holleran said her family has sought a re-route for part of the pipeline onto a neighbor's land — a neighbor she said was not opposed. If that were to occur, she would be eager to agree to an easement that would spare the bulk of the maples. As for ancillary benefits from the pipeline, she was dubious.

"Somebody will benefit, but it won't be us because we are out here in the boonies," she said. "They're never going to pipe gas to our house. We don't even have cable TV." (http://www.pressconnects.com/story/news/local/2015/03/27/constitution-pipeline-landowners/70560802/)

Such a "re-route" will, of course, contribute every bit as much to climate change as the original route: the gas still gets to market. Moreover, it doesn't really matter whether the gas goes to the global markets or remains local; it's "ancillary benefits" involve the emission of greenhouse gases either way. Once, in other words, the trees were in the way of the pipeline, they could be trees or they could be money, but they could not be both, and the Hollerans chose the latter. At that moment, there never was any "Stop the Pipeline!" At least not at that juncture of the right-of-way.

Photo, Wendy Lynne Lee

 To those who'd argue that that calling out the abuse of eminent domain is an effective stalling strategy--that it can monkey wrench a project until relevant environmental or habitat protection laws stall it for another year (March 31st in the Holleran case)--sure. 

Perhaps this is what Catherine Holleran had in mind when she argued in a cease and desist letter dated February, 2016 that:

“We [the Holleran family] assert our [Fifth Amendment] rights, enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, that we must receive compensation before eminent domain condemnation. As compensation hearings have yet to be held, we find any action to develop our property to be unconstitutional. We hope that your client will proceed with good faith negotiations with our counsel prior to any tree cutting, especially given their affinity for the name ‘Constitution Pipeline” (http://www.pikecountycourier.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20160210/OPINION03/160219997)

But this too has become a threadbare tactic in that we know FERC (the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission) exists to permit pipelines, that judges execute laws written by and for an industry that poses an existential threat to human beings, nonhuman animals, and environmental stability. We know that the vocabulary of "property" and therefore "profit" will govern every aspect of this decision-making whether by the state or the industry. We know that the morally weighty distinction between a "vital public interest" and a "profit-seeking enterprise" is long lost not merely to corporate personhood, but to a long and hoary American history whose laws have privileged wealth over life from its inception. 

Part of what's so troubling here is that what the experienced protesters of the anti-fracking and anti-pipeline movements know is not necessarily what the Hollerans are in a position to know. 

The disconnect is quite striking: the Hollerans clearly seek to exhaust every avenue of a legal system stacked against them not for the sake of saving the maple trees per se, but for saving North Harford Maple (http://www.northharfordmaple.com/) that depends on them. 

The protesters claim to want to "Stop the Pipeline!" But these are obviously not the same thing; in fact, they're wholly opposed projects. 

Photo, Wendy Lynne Lee

Put differently: I don't begrudge the Hollerans a livelihood. But as a business dependent on a certain kind of property, maple sap, it's reasonable to ask what distinguishes their business from Williams other than the trivial difference (qua property) between maple sap and natural gas. 

If the answer to that question is "nothing" because the real issue is ecological integrity and not property, then why do the protesters defend the Holleran's quest for compensation? 

Why, in other words, aren't the protesters holding up signs that say "Move the Pipeline!" instead of "Stop the Pipeline!"? 

And if the answer to that question is because there's a world of difference between tapping sugar bush and building a high pressure pipeline--that it is about ecological integrity--why on earth are the protesters defending the Hollerans? 

The sad truth is that the Holleran's sugar maples were lost long before Megan Holleran, daughter and family spokesperson, was quoted in the Pike County Courier:

This is our land and family business. The pipeline has been years in permitting and we just staged our equipment to set up for this year’s syrup production. If they cut the trees now they would destroy our equipment and that’s criminal. That’s property destruction. We asked them to negotiate with our attorney before cutting and that hasn’t happened yet. I’m ready to stop them by standing in the right of way if they try. (http://www.pikecountycourier.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20160210/OPINION03/160219997)

 Here's why:

When Holleran appeals to the word "now," she implies that Williams could come later to cut down the trees--just not now while they need the trees to make money.

When Holleran appeals to the word "property," Williams knows that what the dispute is about is not trees, not an ecology, and not the biota of that land. What they know is that this is really all about money--the meaning of "property"-- and that the Hollerans are willing to play a very specific game of negotiation according to rules that privilege the pipeline company. Williams knows precisely who will win.

Tennessee Pipeline Cut. Photo, Wendy Lynne Lee

When Holleran refers to negotiation with the family attorney, Williams knows that neither she nor any of the protesters are going to stand in the way of the tree-cutters once a judge has ruled in favor of the company's egregious abuse of eminent domain. Why? Because every one of the players in this story--including the protesters--has already agreed to the fundamental rules--that trees are property, maple syrup sites, a staging location for machinery. And with that, it all becomes a matter of whose property, for what use, for how long, and under what conditions.

Simply put: there's no such thing as "No Pipeline!" and "Move the Pipeline!" In the first case the pipeline doesn't get built; in the second it does.

If the Hollerans are victims, it's not of Williams; it's of the protesters who effectively used the family as an opportunity to stage one more "direct action" in the "fight" against the construction of natural gas pipelines. I don't doubt that the protesters were invited. I don't doubt that their motives were essentially good--if misbegotten. But once their leaders knew that this was about relocation and compensation--and never really about stopping the pipeline--why did they move forward? 

Was this about stopping a pipeline or preserving the appearance of a movement? 

Lastly, I have often heard the anti-fracking movement compared to the American Civil Rights movement. I've been tempted to that comparison myself. 

Photo, Wendy Lynne Lee

 But until we become unified and far clearer than we are now about the point of our protest, this comparison is odious.

Civil rights movement leaders may have argued among themselves about many things, but that the movement was about the fundamental dignity of human beings regardless ethnicity, heritage, geography or culture was not one of them. 

That human beings are not property is the governing principle of what we mean by civil rights--by human rights. That's what so many fought and died for during the Civil Rights movement.

We're apparently not that brave.

Until we are prepared to extend the fundamental idea of unimpeachable dignity to the defense of the planet--to treat it and its inhabitants with the respect owed beyond "property," we will not gain traction or win battles beyond the NIMBY-ism ascribed to us by the gas industry. 

Photo, Wendy Lynne Lee

 But that, of course, would mean deep-going alterations in the way we, especially in the wealthy North, live--and decisions far more difficult than whether or not to spend an afternoon or even a whole weekend holding up signs. 

But such meaningful alterations in our ways of life seem awfully hard to hope for among movement builders who'd "stop" a pipeline only to retire to eating a cow, a pig, a chicken.

Indeed, if we can't even see that the most vulnerable among our sentient fellows are not property, what hope is there for things like sugar bush?

Wendy Lynne Lee

The Big Gas Wolf, His New Pack of Drillin' Dogs, and the "Environmentalists" Who Help Him Run Interference

Photo, Wendy Lynne Lee

Recently, Nathan Sooy, Central Campaign Coordinator for  Clean Water Action--one of the in-name-only greenies of whom I have been recently very critical (see list below)--posted on a Facebook thread (without citation) the list of Governor elect Tom Wolf's appointments to Wolf's transition review teams originally published here:

http://www.pennlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/12/250-plus_people_named_to_gov-e.html

When I remarked that this list--a wholesale capitulation to the gas companies--was "utterly predictable," and that "this was what standing on the steps of the Harrisburg Capitol with protest signs will get us," Sooy's response was "Wendy, I have barely gotten started" (Governor Wolf's Department of Environmental... - Nathan Richard Sooy).

Started--with what? 

So far as I can see, Clean Water Action (CWA) has prevented precisely not one minute's worth of the kind of destruction above. In fact, what's underneath that gutted swath of forest--and what's draining into the Muncy Creek just out of camera range is this:

Photo, Wendy Lynne Lee

"Just getting started--with what? is a fair question. After all, CWA states on its website that part of their mission is to stand up for the Clean Water Act--and that would be great--if they actually did that consistently. But, while it may strike CWA folks as crazy, it turns out that clean water is intimately associated with clean air. And CWA's support as part of the faux-coalition, Pennsylvanians Against Fracking (PAF), of governor elect Tom Wolf simply puts the lie to PAF's commitment to the Clean Air Act.

As I showed here, THE WRENCH: I "Heart" Wolf: Why IREX Should send Pennsylvanians Against Fracking a Thank You! Card, Wolf has his hands about as deeply in the pockets of the fossil fuel energy industry as did Corbett--with one caveat:

Wolf is going to pretend to be on the side of clean air and water.

Corbett didn't bother.

And one aspiration:

Wolf believes fervently that he can be re-elected.

That makes Wolf even more dangerous since under his administration many among at least the Democrats (who seem to want to be told they can safely go to sleep) are clearly willing to provide him cover for the sake of keeping the party in power--all the while the gas industry and its affiliates among the pipeliners plan to just keep drilling the state into oblivion, and pumping out the gas to the export depots.

Here's a bit of problem-pipeline--in case you're wondering what that might look like--same location, buried under that topsoil and straw. Pretty nasty--and hazardous to exposure both for water and air. That's drilling mud, and it's both quite irritating to the skin and to the lungs.

Photo, Wendy Lynne Lee

If CWA's association with PAF isn't sufficient for you, fine. Here's CWA's own endorsement of Wolf:

The November 4th election saw the loss of pro-environment seats in both houses of the legislature, predicting further attacks on the environment.  

Fortunately, Governor-Elect Tom Wolf will have significant power to block those attacks and to move forward on crucial environmental protections, and has promised a cleaner future for Pennsylvania.   

Clean Water Action, Conservation Voters of Pennsylvania, PennEnvironment, PennFuture, and the Sierra Club Pennsylvania Chapter congratulate Governor-Elect Wolf on his victory and look forward to working with his administration to protect Pennsylvania’s environment. (http://www.cleanwateraction.org/feature/5-simple-things-governor-tom-wolf-can-do-pennsylvania’s-environment).

That is called "making sure CWA has a seat at the table" even though its players, like Nathan Sooy, know that Wolf is in bed with W. Kirk Liddell, CEO of IREX to the tune of at least $12,000, and Sooy no doubt also knows that Irex has worked tirelessly to deregulate every bit as much of the Clean Air Act as possible--or profitable. And Sooy also knows that Wolf happily accepted at least $273,000 in energy sector donations. 

It is indeed richly ironic that among CWA's "Five Simple Things that Governor Tom Wolf can do for Pennsylvania's Environment" is this:

Pennsylvania ranks among the worst states in the nation for air pollution and illnesses like asthma. Currently, Pennsylvania does not directly regulate methane pollution from natural gas operations and lags behind other states in controlling air emissions. Governor-Elect Wolf should work with DEP to directly regulate methane emissions from natural gas operations. Additionally, Pennsylvania should enact a strong “Smog Rule,” to limit pollutants like nitrogen oxide and volatile organic compounds.  

None of this is going to happen while IREX CEO Liddell is on the donation list for Wolf's re-election--not to mention the big gassers responsible for the other $261,000. Moreover, here CWA explicitly concedes that it's only interested in regulating--not stopping (much less banning) natural gas extraction. ALL CWA is asking for (and ever so politely) is that Wolf work with DEP to regulate methane emissions--and that means from fracking operations CWA assumes will continue.

And Sooy of course knows that if Wolf gets his way (however unlikely) and gets an extraction tax, there will be even less regulation since fewer regs/less enforcement means more gas production and therefore more tax revenue (more of this below--see http://thewrenchphilosleft.blogspot.com/2014/11/two-toms-sheep-outfit-and-drill-bit.html).

All of this makes it even more richly ironic that CWA posts the following among their "Five Simple Things":

To implement these policies, Governor-Elect Wolf needs to build a team of agency leaders committed to environmental protection and independent of the special interests that these bodies oversee – new leadership for the Department of Environmental Protection, the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, the Public Utilities Commission, the Delaware River Basin Commission, and the Susquehanna River Basin Commission.Leaders of these agencies should know that climate change is a problem; enthusiastically support renewable energy, clean air, and clean water; and understand that their first duty is to protect the health and safety of Pennsylvania’s citizens.

Let's see what this cast of "leaders" for Mr. Wolf looks like so far. From the PennLive report's list of Wolf's "Environmental Protection Team"

Christina Simeone, Director at the PennFuture Energy Center--entirely pro-fracking on the long-rejected argument that natural gas is cleaner than coal: "Coal job losses are natural gas job gains. If coal plant retirements were occurring because people stopped using electricity, then that is net economic job loss. But that is not the case. Job loss from retiring coal plants is being coupled with job gains in the natural gas sector. In economics, this is called a transfer, not a loss" (Coal isn't dying - it just can't compete: Christina Simeone | PennLive.com). And, there's this gem, Simeone's view of the new EPA regulations concerning coal-fired power plants: "This is a great day for the environment,” said Christina Simeone, director of the PennFuture Energy Center. But Simeone noted that a surge of cheaper natural gas from the Marcellus Shale was already pushing power companies to shut down some coal plants. “The reality is coal is being outcompeted. Gas is cheaper, and gas is cleaner,” Simeone said (Pollution plan may have big impact in state - News - Citizens' Voice).

Rob Foxx, managing attorney at Manko, Gold, Katcher, and Fox, LLP: "Robb is the managing partner of the firm and has a diverse practice involving compliance counseling, litigation and transactional work for clients in the waste, chemical manufacturing and development industries and on behalf of cities and municipalities." Foxx, in other words, makes sure regulations are followed--regulations written by and for the extraction industries that donate to Wolf's campaign, and who will see even less regulation (since that will mean higher revenues) if Wolf wins his proposal for an extraction tax. That Foxx represents the interests of polluting industries is clear on his website: Robert D. Fox - Manko, Gold, Katcher & Fox LLP | Best Lawyers



Denise Brinley, Vice President and Principal Consultant, TRC Companies: "Support TRC’s strategic initiatives in the fields of Shale Gas, Renewables, RE Power, and Brownfield redevelopment, as well as the expansion of TRC’s due diligence, permitting, remediation and Exit Strategy® service areas in Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, New York and surrounding states. Lead TRC's “Appalachian Shale Gas Initiative" - responsible for identifying market opportunities, generating sales, and leading a core team of business development professionals for Appalachian shale gas service growth (Marcellus and Utica Shales in Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, and New York) (Denise Brinley | LinkedIn). TRC:  "TRC is experienced in the permitting of all types of fossil-fueled combustion and power generation technologies including simple combustion turbines, combined cycle combustion turbines, coal-fired boilers as well as integrated gasification combined cycle technologies."And there's this: "TRC is a recognized, national leader in providing unparalleled consulting services to the natural gas industry, having permitted many of the largest pipeline, liquefied natural gas (LNG), and storage projects in the United States. Our professional staff has extensive experience in siting, permitting, and compliance services, including construction inspection and post-construction monitoring of pipeline facilities, for inter- and intra- state transmission, local distribution, and interconnects to new power generation facilities, ' "(TRC Companies, Inc. - Energy | Natural Gas/LNG). If this doesn't speak for itself about Brinley,  I don't know what does. Except this: she's a textbook example of the government's revolving door. She was Deputy Secretary and Bureau Director of Environmental Cleanup and Brownfields, DEP. 

Nick DeBenedictus, CEO Aqua America: Responsible for the eviction of the residents of the Riverdale Mobile Home Community, Jersey Shore, PA to build a three million gallon water withdrawal for frack pads near Williamsport: L’Eau DeBenedictis: Aqua America, Water Insecurity, The Manufacture of Scarcity, and Fracking | Raging Chicken Press. There's much to say about Aqua America's stalwart work to corporatize and privatize access to clean water--not the least of which is its implications for folks who can't afford it, but suffice it here just to point out that few CEOs more transparently exemplify the appropriation--with government's blessing--of public utilities--public goods-for private profit ventures. This appointment speaks volumes about Governor Wolf's values.

This is just a snippet of what we can expect from the new governor. Let's add:

George Ellis, Executive Director, PA Coal Alliance
Shari Williams, Community Outreach Manager, Marcellus Shale Coalition
Steve Winberg, Vice President, Consol Energy

I'll add more later. But you get the idea. And, of course, there's precisely no representation from any of the genuinely grassroots anti-fracking organizations. 

And if you're still not sure about where Wolf stands, how about another picture of what all this means:

Photo, Wendy Lynne Lee

So, it's super clear that Governor Wolf has no intention of paying any attention to CWA's 'Five Simple Things." So, knowing this, what could Sooy mean by "just getting started"?

Could he mean that he's working towards organizing real, arrest-able, aggressively non-violent protests where he's willing to be pepper-sprayed and water cannoned? 

Could he mean that he's prepared to denounce the governor and the governor's gas stooges in a substantial--arrest-able--display of public horror? The kind that would alienate him from the political aspirants at, say, PennFuture?

Could he mean that he's going to make public the fact that the laws are written to protect the extraction industry--and then denounce the Democratic Party for its conciliatory stance for the industry, and against the people?

Could he mean that he's about to make a pubic statement that the moratorium resolution is dead?

But then here's the million dollar question: If that's what "just getting started" means, why didn't Sooy do that before the election?

We all know why--that course would endanger CWA's spot in the Wolf Pack.

So, if you want change, steer clear of CWA and their politically expedient allies.

Or, just look once more at the pictures. 

If you want more of that, stay with the Wolf Pack and all of their stooges, including Clean Water Action. 

For more, please see:

http://thewrenchphilosleft.blogspot.com/2014/12/weiser-state-forest-between-underground.html

http://thewrenchphilosleft.blogspot.com/2014/11/normal.html

http://thewrenchphilosleft.blogspot.com/2014/11/the-big-new-greenwash-governor-and.html

http://thewrenchphilosleft.blogspot.com/2014/11/two-toms-sheep-outfit-and-drill-bit.html

http://thewrenchphilosleft.blogspot.com/2014/09/selling-out-movement-to-guarantee-seat.html

Two "Toms," a Sheep Outfit, and a Drill Bit: The Lies that Win Elections for the Gas Thugs

A few observations about the elections on Tuesday, 11.4.2014:

1. This is simple, folks: We either decide to fight. Or we decide to concede. But a vote for either Tom Wolf or another round of Tom Corbett amounts to precisely the same. Mr. Wolf will embrace everything fracking. He already has. And even the thinnest most paltry pretense at a tax will not only entrench the industry even more deeply in the state's economy, it will guarantee even less regulation. Why? Less regulation will mean more gas production, and when you've banked your candidacy on restoring funding for public education, you're going to make sure you get some of those cents.

2. What we must get here: Mr.Wolf is already thinking about his re-election to a second term. That will require he make modestly good on his first term, and that is going to be all about the gas. Therefore, he is going to be entirely willing to sacrifice you. Make no mistake about it: a vote for Wolf is a vote for the Gas Thugs.

3. At least Corbett is a clear target, a clear enemy, and therefore highly useful as a point of departure for the resistance. This is not an argument for voting for Corbett. The point is to make clear that Mr. Wolf is a wolf in sheep's clothing--the guy who naively believes all the hype about safe regulated gas production. There is no such thing--but the one that's that's worse that the gas infrastructure itself is being willfully ignorant about the hype.

4. Some claim that a "new broom sweeps clean": that is simply absurd. That Wolf will appoint a "new" cabinet means nothing more that he'll bring in his likely to be corrupted pals instead of Corbett's. But the notion that these folks will somehow be less beholden to the gas companies is highly unlikely. Why? Because Wolf is so beholden. The reason the gas industry has poured at least $273,000--just since June is because they want to make sure their influence on decision-making is uninterrupted. 

And it will be.

(http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2014/06/tom_corbett_tom_wolf_both_take.html)

5. Here are the facts: It doesn't matter for squat how many PR battles the industry loses so long as they can keep pumping out the gas. Whether a Wolf or a Corbett administration is irrelevant. We would be far better served turning our attention away from what are entirely deceptive party politics, and turning it squarely toward our communities and townships to draft ordinances that proactively promote and protect the rights of the communities and their members. Will these communities be sued by the gas companies? Very possibly. Is that worse than the concession a vote for Wolf exemplifies? Absolutely not. And there is no bad PR for these companies that could be worse than a movement across the country that seeks to establish those fundamental human and community rights.

It's time to think. 

It's time to think bigger.

The argument against taxing the gas industry:

1. A tax on natural gas extraction via fracking will institutionalize the industry by making social programs dependent on its revenue stream. However much the industry resists it, they know that any tax will have this positive effect for them--and so their resistance is feigned and simply aimed at the lowest tax possible. The amount of the tax has no real bearing on the extent to which it institutionalizes the industry as part of the state's internal revenue structure.

2. Wolf is the best thing that could happen to the gas industry--far better than Corbett--because while the duped are celebrating Wolf's imposing a tax, the industry will go about their dirty business as usual--but with the added bonus that they now have the cover of legitimacy behind a painless tax that will guarantee their presence in the state forever--or until they leave us a spent industrialized wasteland. Corbett could never have lent them this cover.

3. Taxing the industry will actively encourage even less regulation. The formula is simple" Imposing a tax=insuring dependence of social programs=pressure to generate more revenue=pressure for the industry to make more money=weakening regulations. In other words, the more dependence, the more pressure to generate greater tax revenues, and because the tax as a percentage of profit is never going to amount to anything substantial, the thing that's going to have to give is the regulations and their enforcement. When you add to this the fact that--as this article demonstrates once again--the regulations are meaningless and unenforceable now, just imagine what that will mean given the institutionalization of the industry. Welcome to Texas.

4. Once the industry is institutionalized in the state's tax structure, they will be able to exert pressure like never before. They will be in a position to level substantive threats of withdrawal and whoever is governor will cave to the threat precisely because essential social programs--and (thanks to Wolf) funding for education will now be tied to gas tax revenue. The regulations will then be enforced even less, more and more Democrats will jump on board for horrendous bills like the gutting of the state's endangered species act--and representative like yourself will have paved the way for the future industrialization of the state including the further erosion of property rights, rights to clean air and water, rights to speak out against the industry. In short, an invitation to become part of the state's essential economic wherewithal in an invitation to corporate hegemony.

5. (1)-(4) can have only one conclusion: more fracking including all of its dirty and damaging infrastructure.

Why the Green Party is the Alternative:

Of all the issues confronting Pennsylvanians—health care, education, jobs, etc.—among the most important of these are the devastating ecological and human rights toll the fossil fuel extraction industry has taken on the Commonwealth, her neighboring states, and the planet as a whole in the form of its potentially devastating contribution to climate change.

Fracking must be banned.

There are many reasons why an articulate and uncompromising opposition to hydraulic fracturing, mountain top removal, tar sands extraction, other forms of unconventional gas drilling, the Keystone Pipeline, the construction of LNG export depots, is critical to the Pennsylvania gubernatorial campaign. 

Here are just four:

1.The responsibility of the governor is to uphold the Pennsylvania Constitution, including Article 1, section 27: “The people have a right to clean air, pure water, and to the preservation of the natural, scenic, historic and esthetic values of the environment. Pennsylvania’s public natural resources are the common property of all the people, including generations yet to come. As trustee of these resources, the Commonwealth shall conserve and maintain them for the benefit of all the people.”

2.The fossil fuel industry’s profit objectives are demonstrably inconsistent with the commitment to health care, education, and jobs.

A few examples:

a. Health care: given the hazardous health effects that follow from exposure to the carcinogens, biocides, and other toxins associated with the fracking process; given that a similar account can be given for exposure to toxins resultant from compressor station emissions; given the potential for explosions at every juncture of this process—frack pad, pipeline, truck accident, compressor; and lastly, given that these hazards make particularly vulnerable populations already marginalized by the state’s inadequate health care access, no case can be made in defense of the industry’s conversion of Pennsylvania into what amounts to an extraction factory for wealthy multinationals.

b. Education: in addition to the obvious hazards of locating extraction-associated facilities next to public schools, the effort of the Corbett administration to extort state universities into accepting extraction operations on their campuses is in obvious conflict with the missions of those public institutions, and inconsistent with the commitment to the health and welfare of their communities. APSCUF—the Associated Pennsylvania State College and University Faculty union—opposes any such construction, and I had the privilege of drafting that resolution for all 14 campuses. 

c. Jobs: as is made clear on the numbers, the shale boom has not generated lasting employment for Pennsylvanians. Instead, it has diminished the potential for future employment in industries connected to our once spectacular forests, rivers, and high value streams, exposed mostly non-unionized workers to toxic health hazards, and exported profits from frack pad to off-shore bank accounts of already obscenely wealthy CEOs. That a very few may become very wealthy via royalties or other associated enterprise at the expense of the very many is intolerable to a democratic union and a prescription for future disaster.

3. States are no more closed loop systems than are human bodies or frack pads. In a world increasingly confronted by the effects of global climate change, deforestation, desertification, and toxic pollution, governors and legislators must act responsibly not merely to their own constituents—much less to their campaign donors—but to the stability of the global ecology as a whole. We can no longer afford to bury our heads in the sand about the impacts of an industry whose history so clearly shows that its mercenary drive to profit exceeds at every turn its commitment to human welfare or ecological stability.

4. States do not have the right to deploy their police forces to quash dissent—yet, our current administration not only acts legislatively to insure the smooth path to profit, but deploys its police resources against the people in an effort to suppress, fear-monger, manipulate, and intimidate those who expose this path as littered with toxins, political corruptions, and egregious forms of harm. Look for example to Adam Federman's recent account of the Marcellus Shale Operator's Crime Committee.

Extreme forms of fossil fuel extraction must be banned not only because the citizens of the Commonwealth cannot afford the consequences, but because no regulation can adequately prevent the harm. No matter what some argue are “best practices,” none keep the gas in the ground—the only strategy that will prevent the contribution of fossil fuel extraction to climate change.

Pennsylvania’s governor must act not only in the interest of all Pennsylvanians—but for the future of Pennsylvania. What this means is that she or he must take seriously the adage that the local is the global—for this is no mere hyperbole; it is fact.

And as such, it is moral duty.