Archive

Archive for November, 2015

Corporate Polluters: Don’t Shame Them, Regulate Them

November 2nd, 2015 No comments

Down the Toxic Free Market Rabbit Hole

No Shame At Shameless Corporations

alice1

“The government does not need to stamp out dissent. The uniformity of imposed public opinion through the corporate media does a very effective job. … the problem and its parameters, create a box that dissenters struggle vainly to elude. The critic who insists on changing the context is dismissed as irrelevant, extremist, ‘the Left’—or ignored altogether.”” ~~~ Sheldon Wolin, quoted by Chris Hedges

The Thompson Street Halloween theme this year was Alice In Wonderland – a timely topic, given our increasingly cynical and dystopian politics.

The homes along Thompson Street in Bordentown put on an awesome display at Halloween, and this year was spectacular as usual – including a String Band. (I wonder if they realize that their collectivist community planning is closer to the Paris Commune than Tea Party politics?)

But reading a NJ Spotlight story this morning prompts this post – it made me feel like I hadn’t yet emerged from the Rabbit Hole I went down on Halloween night partying at the HOB (“Heart of Bordentown”, a local bar) Let me explain.

Naive and Destructive Premises Of Market Based Environmentalists

About 30 years ago, when the corporate funded backlash attack on traditional environmental regulation was beginning to gain momentum, a certain “third way” or “market oriented” “corporate accommodationist”  faction of the environmental community thought that market based tools were an effective supplement to shortcomings in traditional regulation.

That period is when we saw the rise of the market based pollution trading concept and all the ENGO campaigns seeking corporate greening and sustainable development.

One of the less well known tools of this corporate faction was disclosure of information – e.g. product labeling laws and “Right To Know”, et cetera – the premise was pure free market economics: consumers should know what they are buying and corporations see strategic and market value in their reputations with consumers.

If a corporation were forced to disclose publicly how much toxic crap they discharged, this thinking went, they would be ashamed or face market competition from consumer demand to reduce those toxic emissions.

At first, it seemed to work – the emissions appeared to come down sharply.

But much of that reduction was purely paperwork, not real (just consider air pollution permit “potential to emit” versus “actual emissions” to gain an understanding of this paper accounting unreal reduction in emissions).

Instead of market driven or corporate shame based reforms, research has found that any reductions were primarily the result of traditional regulation:

TRI induced public disclosure may have contributed to the decline in reported toxic releases, that alone has not been the cause of those reductions: the evidence is strong that changes in toxic emission intensity are a byproduct of more traditional command and control regulation of emissions of non-toxic pollutants

And since the early third way days, market tools have come not to supplement regulation but to dominate and often replace regulation. Unshackled and deregulated corporations are shameful and not capable of being shamed at this point.

The Third Way accommodationists were naive and ill informed, unaware that they were even involved in an ideological war and corporate backlash campaign.

But despite an horrific 30 year reign of error, this pro-corporate conservationist camp has not slithered away in shame with its tail between its legs, it is well funded and blindly charges on, using new slogans and environmental catastrophe’s to justify itself.

A typical ludicrous argument goes thusly:

Instead of scolding capitalism, conservationists should partner with corporations in a science-based effort to integrate the value of nature’s benefits into their operations and cultures.”

And that argument is dismissed as follows:

It has not arisen in a vacuum, but is the logical culmination of 30 years of corporatization of the Big Greens, as enviros starting in the 1980s degenerated into a professionalized, business-funded interest group and began to operate like the businessmen they once saw as the adversary. Consider that the president and CEO of the Nature Conservancy today, Mark Tercek, is a former managing director and partner at Goldman Sachs.

We see hangovers of this misguided effort, even among progressives, in such campaigns like climate disinvestment, and among the still deluded, in efforts that target individual market consumer behaviors like buying a Prius or compact fluorescent light bulbs to save the world – both of which rely on market behaviors

(more to come on this topic with respect to NJ in a future post)

Alice in Wonderland today

As example of just how far down the rabbit hole we’ve gone, consider today’s NJ Spotlight story I mentioned at the outset.

The origin of the Right To Know – Toxic Release Inventory programs was to target corporations to hold them accountable and shame them for their emissions of toxic pollutants.

That used to drive annual Reports by environmental groups – and blaring headlines – about the “Dirty Dozen” or “Top 10 Polluters”.

But check out this story – seemingly oblivious to this history, now, its the TOWNS that are targeted, as if THEY caused the pollution!

THE LIST: NJ LOCALES WITH THE HIGHEST AMOUNT OF TOXIC CHEMICAL RELEASES

So, it’s bad enough that not only have market oriented tools displaced regulation, even the core free market accountability purposes of those tools have been twisted beyond recognition.
alice2

Toxic Tea Party

Toxic Tea Party

Categories: Uncategorized Tags:

What Explains Invisibility of Connecticut Pipeline Permit Denial?

November 1st, 2015 No comments

What Am I Missing?

Connecticut Case Should Be An Example for a 50 State Campaign

Sometimes legal victories are so significant that they undergo a process that extends far beyond the courtroom and legal community to become a part of the fabric of daily life, public discourse and lay a groundwork for activism – think “Brown v. Board of Education“.

The US Supreme Court’s Massachusetts decision that found that CO2 was a pollutant able to be regulated under the Clean Air Act is an example of that phenomenon with respect to climate change.

(fracktivists had similar victories in the Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court’s decision striking down pro fracking law called A13 and in NY Gov. Cuomo’s fracking moratorium.)

While not quite to those levels of profound legal and policy significance, I may have stumbled upon a similar case for the interstate gas pipeline battles – but curiously, I could find little of the process of assimilation into the broader pipeline debate or focus of anti-pipeline activism.

What am I missing? This is not ancient history. Check out these features and their relevance today:

I’ve written repeatedly about what I consider the most powerful tool to kill interstate gas pipelines: State denial of the water quality certification under Section 401 (and 404) of the federal Clean Water Act. (does anyone think these practices would “protect existing uses” and “maintain existing water quality” at 31 C1 stream crossings?)

The Connecticut case that relied on this State power killed a FERC regulated interstate pipeline known as Islander East.

The Connecticut DEP denied a Clean Water Act based water quality certification and that State permit denial killed the pipeline. State power was not preempted.

The Connecticut DEP Commissioner who denied the permit is now the Obama EPA Administrator, Gina McCarthy (during a raging national debate on the Keystone XL oil pipeline). Curiously, that bold action is not even listed in her Wiki bio.

The Connecticut State Attorney General who litigated the denial is now US Senator Richard Blumenthal. Curiously, that bold leadership also is not listed in his Wiki bio (although it is listed by the Sierra Club as one reason for their endorsement).

Why would such a huge achievement, so relevant to major public pipeline debates, be virtually a secret? What explains that? What am I missing? Am I exaggerating the significance of gas pipeline debate? Or misconstruing the legal issues in the case?

Does the power of the gas industry keep that history of an extremely rare environmental permit denial under the radar screen?

The Connecticut permit denial was upheld by the US Court of Appeals and the gas industry’s appeal was rejected by the US Supreme Court.

Gov. M. Jodi Rell and AG Richard Blumenthal are hailing the U.S. Supreme Court’s refusal to hear an appeal regarding the planned construction of the Islander East pipeline across Long Island Sound.

As such, they are declaring a complete victory in the long-running battle against the natural gas pipeline.

“First Broadwater. Now Islander East,” Rell said in a statement released by spokesman Rich Harris. “With today’s Supreme Court announcement, we have succeeded in turning back two ill-conceived energy projects that would have caused irreparable harm to Long Island Sound.”

She added, “Our state and this region do need reliable energy sources. However, we can – and must – find ways to meet our energy needs without sacrificing unique and precious natural resources like Long Island Sound. Neither Broadwater nor Islander East met that test, and we are all better off without them.”

Blumenthal declared that the Islander East is now “officially dead” after a battle that lasted nearly 10 years.

“This sweeping victory is the death knell for this hugely destructive project, dealing it the demise it so richly deserves,” Blumenthal said. “This immensely invasive, intrusive pipeline was the worst place and worst case for Long Island Sound and its fragile environment. The U.S. Supreme Court rightly let stand a powerful Court of Appeals decision citing the environmental destruction certain to result from dredging, drilling, plowing and backfilling to lay this pipeline.”

Very few cases have all these kind of high profile features – and enable such targeted activist campaigns and political accountability. (“We call on Gov. X to deny Clean Water Act permits….”)

And its not like 49 other Governors, Attorneys General, and State environmental agencies are all lined up and denying environmental permits that kill multibillion interstate gas infrastructure investments.

And federal regulation by FERC is a joke:

we were unable to find a single FERC denial of an application for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for an interstate gas transmission line.

So, with this kind of profile, the Connecticut case should be a big deal strategically, politically and legally, no?

So why is the case literally invisible?

Why are pipeline opponents investing so much time and resources in the failed FERC process when State Agencies can deny permits to kill pipelines?

Why do I get no engagement when I asked these questions to pipeline opponents?

Could this be why? A 2001 NY Times story:

A PROPOSAL to build a 40-mile-long natural gas pipeline across Long Island Sound has divided conservation groups in New York and Connecticut, not just along state lines but along philosophies. At the heart of the disagreement is whether the project will threaten the environment or improve it.

On the Connecticut side are the organizations that contend the pipeline will destroy oyster and lobster habitats and fish breeding areas and will endanger delicate wetlands. Many of the groups that oppose the gas pipeline also opposed the proposal for a cross-Sound electrical cable that was rejected by regulators in March, primarily because of environmental issues.

”It’s very unlikely they could put a gas pipeline across the Sound in a way that would be environmentally acceptable,” said Barbara C. Gordon, the executive director of the Connecticut Seafood Council, an industry group. ”There are alternatives for utility companies, and there is no need to damage the environment.”

On the other side of the Sound are some environmental advocates who say that growing electricity demands will require new power plants and that gas-fired generators will produce much less air pollution than coal- or oil-fired plants.

”From an energy point of view, we support it,” said Neal M. Lewis, the executive director of the Long Island Neighborhood Network, a grass-roots citizens’ group with an office in Massapequa. ”What we’re calling for in the short term is more gas to replace the oil-burning plants on Long Island.”

I really hope not – I thought we were all past the “bridge fuel” bullshit.

Categories: Uncategorized Tags: