Essay: Bottled GreenwashBy Anthony Henry Smith
Some may think Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. should recuse himself from NY Governor Cuomo’s 13-person committee on fracking simply because he is the governor’s ex brother-in-law, but how many are aware of an additional conflict? If fracking poisons any part of the state’s drinking water supply, public reaction will certainly result in increased profits for Kennedy’s not-for-profit bottled water company and for his associates in the for-profit bottled water industry who even now are importing water from places almost as remote from one another as they are from New York.
Kennedy’s idea of selling water and donating all profits after expenses to environmental causes is contradictory on the face of it. The manufacture and distribution of bottled water does more damage to the biotic and physical environment than the so-called profits could possibly mitigate.
Glaciers in Norway are melting due to global heating. Some of this melt water is shipped by tanker to North America where it is distributed widely as bottled water. On the other side of the planet, potable water from the South Pacific island nation of Fiji is shipped to 40 countries around the world, even though those who live and work there have suffered from water shortages.
The distribution area for exotic water includes New York, and fracking obviously would greatly increase bottled water sales in the state. Fracking in New York is all the more likely if Kennedy, who has recently and only half-heartedly spoken out against fracking nationally, continues to waffle on fracking in New York
When Kennedy was scheduled to appear for a radio interview on Susan Arbetter’s April 23rd“Capitol Pressroom” program on Northeast Public Radio, he was late, which automatically gave a lot of airtime over to an experienced communications professional who supported fracking by repeating the industry’s examples of magical thinking propaganda. He actually implied that New York somehow benefits because many parts of the US are forced into sacrificing their well being to increase profits in the energy industry. Now it was New York’s responsibility to do the same. He said we need to do a “gut check.” I did the moment he said it and can’t repeat here what my guts told me to write in response. Neither my guts nor I were there to tell him directly. Neither was Kennedy.
When Kennedy did finally arrive, he spent what little of his time was left giving the views of frackers without seriously opposing them.
What are we to make of such conduct? This was not lying on Kennedy’s part, since lying consists of identifying the truth and stating its opposite. This appears to be a total disregard for the truth, an all too common manipulative device identified by Harry Frankfurt; concisely and well described by Frankfurt in the opening of “On Truth,” which is quoted in the first paragraph of this link. (See: http://politicsandlanguage.wordpress.com/2011/06/09/the-essence-of-bullshitting
Arbetter opened her interview by directly asking Kennedy to state where he stood on the issue of fracking. His half-hearted response spoke volumes, suggesting that although he had been for fracking and now opposed it, he might support it if the regulatory agency were strengthened to do its job. When Arbetter asked if he thought the DEC was that regulatory agency Kennedy simply ignored the question and changed the topic. With minutes left to go, Arbetter stated “I need to know from you (in) what aspects the DEC’s review was inadequate.” The inadequacy of Kennedy’s reply was in itself remarkable. At the very moment when he had finally exhausted the topic of “roads,” Time politely drew the curtain as it must, forcing Kennedy to an immediate close with the truncated words “health issues” still clinging to his lips. But as the Royal Society has been saying since 1660, Nullius in verba. (Take nobody’s word for it.) Click on the link below and listen for yourself. And while you’re listening, notice how professionally Susan Arbetter conducts this interview with one who is not only late, but unapologetically so.: http://blogs.wcny.org/the-capitol-pressroom-for-april-23-2012/
During the interview Kennedy told Arbetter that “a lot of people like myself look at natural gas as a bridge fuel” and then went on to explain that he now thought differently. Apparently his change of heart did not come timely enough to enable Riverkeeper to engage a credible staff scientist for their September 2010 report titled “Fractured Communities.” Riverkeeper’s remarkable choice was William Wegner, a convicted environmental felon, perjurer, and tax fraud who has been described by a Riverkeeper board member in terms usually reserved for bargain basement specials: “I believe we got a very brilliant man at a discount price because he made a mistake.” (Brock, Pope, “RFK Jr.’s River of Trouble,” Talk Magazine, October, 2000, p 58)
Eight years of wildlife smuggling can hardly be dismissed as a simple “mistake,” especially when combined with perjury and tax fraud. These are not qualities one might reasonably expect to find in persons working on the staff at Riverkeeper.
Wegner’s prison sentence seems to have done little to improve his ethical sense. The resume Wegner submitted to Riverkeeper accounts for his period of incarceration without referring to the fact of the incarceration itself. Wegner describes work he performed and omits the significant information that he performed this work while he was serving time as a prison inmate. Wegner submitted this resume to Kennedy, who accepted it and then forwarded it to Boyle, who totally and immediately rejected it.
By the way, whatever did happen to Robert H Boyle, the authentic founder of Riverkeeper, the single individual who actually created the concept of Riverkeeper in America and the Waterkeeper Alliance back in the days when Kennedy was still busy living his life as a drug addict? Did he retire? Is he still alive? How is he being recognized and honored by a grateful environmental community for his lifetime of dedicated accomplishment? That polymath and naturalist who famously and compassionately trusted and mentored Mr. Kennedy in Kennedy’s time of adult crisis; what ever became of him?
When the Riverkeeper board voted 13 to 8 to accede to Mr. Kennedy’s demand to hire Mr. William Wegner as staff scientist over Boyle’s objection, Boyle resigned on the spot and 8 other board members followed him in resignation. But take nobody’s word for it. Evaluate it for yourself in this link to: Robert Worth, A Kennedy and His Mentor Part Ways Over River Group, The New York Times, Sunday, November 5, 2000 http://www.nytimes.com/2000/11/05/nyregion/a-kennedy-and-his-mentor-part-ways-over-river-group.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm
Also see: Pope Brock, RFK Jr.’s River of Trouble, Talk Magazine, October, 2000, p. 53-58.
By including Mr. Kennedy’s participation as a member of the committee to advise him on fracking, Governor Cuomo advances the illusion that environmental activists of all stripes have a voice in this forum, simply by virtue of Mr. Kennedy’s presence. Kennedy can publicly and half heartedly oppose fracking, while Cuomo can respectfully agree to disagree and overrule Kennedy. The environmentalists have been heard!
Can Riverkeeper or Waterkeeper Alliance possibly break ties with an oligarch who can raise large sums of money, even while he is out to make the world safe for exploitation by his associates in the greenwashed bottled water industry?
How can they not?
May 13, 2012
Poughkeepsie, New York
Independent Coalition of Citizens Against Fracking
For Immediate Release
September 20, 2011
Grassroots Groups Expose Bias of Cuomo’s Fracking Advisory Panel in Report Released Today
Report available at GasMain.org
New York State’s recently named Hydraulic Fracturing Advisory Panel is stacked with appointees who have already made clear they’re on the side of the gas industry’s plan to industrialize the state, say grassroots organizations from around New York. The panel was established by Governor Andrew Cuomo’s DEC commissioner Joe Martens in early July – just a week after the governor ended the de facto statewide moratorium on hydraulic fracking.
In a report released today, the grassroots groups show that the panel is dominated not only by industry representatives and industry-paid academics, but also by representatives of national groups that claim to be working to protect the environment but actually are on record as being promoters of so-called “natural” gas.
“The large national organizations’ coziness with polluting industries, Albany and Washington explains their repeated betrayal of grassroots efforts to protect communities and the environment,” said Robert Jereski of New York Climate Action Group, a grassroots environmental organization focused on climate change and ending industrial logging of old growth forests. “These national groups were chosen by Cuomo because he knew he could count on them to support the false notion of ‘safe’ fracking.”
Members of grassroots environmental, civic and community organizations from across the state, who have been educating themselves and others about fracking for several years, are sure the Advisory Panel’s forthcoming report will contain no surprises.
Finger Lakes-based Lisa Wright, a longtime activist on shale issues, pointed out, “New Yorkers and most people throughout the world who have looked closely at unconventional gas development know that fracking for gas is seriously problematic. Organizations that call themselves ‘environmental’ need to stand up for our communities and act like forward-thinking stewards of the earth, not shale-gas salesmen.”
Cecile Lawrence of Tioga Peace and Justice, Green Party NYS 2010 candidate for U.S. Senate and 2011 candidate for Tioga County Legislature commented “From the moment he began his campaign for Governor of NYS, Andrew Cuomo insisted on being vague regarding his stance on the fracking of the state. Through the makeup of this panel of fracking advisors he has shown that he clearly has allied himself with fossil fuel based monied interests. The lack of presence of anyone from a true grassroots organization grounded in the people of the state whose lives and livelihoods are at stake shows that Cuomo needs an education as to whom he was elected to represent.”
Carl Arnold of Chenango, Delaware, Otsego Gas Drilling Opposition Group (CDOG) also sees pro-“safe” drilling agendas driving some of the larger, supposedly green groups represented on the panel. “Some groups surely know that drilling can never be safe, yet are fudging on a ban,” he said. “This contradiction is made clear when one examines the connections between multinational polluters, large financial and law firms, the oil and gas boys and some well-known NGOs that claim to be protectors of the environment. Those connections raise the obvious questions: What do they receive from the deep pockets of the oil and gas industry? How can they work with those folks?”
The focus of many allied upstate and downstate activists is Part 2 of a just-released report (available at gasmain.org) on the Cuomo advisory panel members who were purportedly appointed to represent the environmental movement.
Coalition to Protect New York is a collective of organizations around the Finger Lakes, central, western, and Southern Tiers regions. “We’ve learned from painful observation and experience,” said one of the coalition’s cofounders, Jack Ossont of Yates County, “that there is no way to ‘regulate safely’ this destructive industrial process. That’s why informed New Yorkers as well as people across the country are demanding that it be banned.”
Adds a fellow CPNY cofounder, Kate Bartholomew of Schuyler County, “Even with our huge and growing movement, the governor’s panel hasn’t got a single member representing our position. To use taxpayer money — our money — to establish this panel and to promote fracking using these discredited ‘environmental’ organizations and industry insiders is not only the opposite of good representative government; it’s downright deceitful.”
In the report released today by the grassroots alliance, familiar groups such as the Natural Resources Defense Council, National Sierra Club, Riverkeeper and many others, including New York State level groups, are examined. Their collusion, as well as the incestuous connections between the industry, Governor Cuomo’s advisers, and vendors hired by his administration and his regulatory body, are a major threat to representational government in our state. In July the Albany Project reported that a vendor paid by DEC to conduct an “independent” economic study of proposed fracking has no expertise in such analysis. The firm is also a paid consultant for big oil and gas clients.
“That’s antidemocratic and unethical,” said Dave Walczak of Bath-based Citizens for Healthy Communities. “Besides, if the governor and Department of Environmental Conservation needed a study on community impacts, to save taxpayers the costs of this so-called ‘independent study,’ all they had to do was drive across the Pennsylvania line below Elmira. What you see there is not what we want in any part of New York.”
A similar federal-level advisory panel examining fracking came under fire recently when 28 top scientists challenged President Obama. His panel, they charged, “appears to be performing advocacy-based science” because its chairman profits from fossil fuel exploitation. Gas industry representatives and academics who are publicly avowed fracking advocates figured prominently on the federal panel.
Clare Donohue of Sane Energy Project expressed the question being asked by thousands of New Yorkers: “Governor Cuomo, we demand an explanation of why you have given the people on the ground, in thousands of communities where fracking is proposed—we whose lives would be forever altered—no seats on your advisory panel?”
Loophole in NY Water Withdrawal Bill Gives Fracking Industry Unlimited Rights
Senate Bill Puts Public Water Into Private Hands
06.13.2011– WATKINS GLEN, NY – A loophole contained in a landmark water withdrawal bill now under consideration in the New York Senate will allow the fracking industry to take more than 100,000 gallons of water per day from state rivers, lakes and ponds free of charge with no environmental oversight or permit.
Mainstream environmental groups have championed the water withdrawal bill (S3798) as “pro-environment.” But numerous grassroots environmental organizations oppose the measure because it gives free access to millions of gallons of clean, fresh drinking water to the oil and gas industry for use in hydrofracking for methane gas and could lead to widespread contamination of groundwater resources.
Companion water withdrawal legislation proposed in Canada three years raised similar concerns. The Polaris Institute, an Ottawa-based organization of social activists, said at the time, “What we are witnessing in Ontario is the quiet restructuring of water resource management. This includes….defining water in ways that give private interests the legal right to exploit it.”
The Canadian bill, part of the Great Lakes Compact by the governors of Great Lakes states and the premiers of Ontario and Quebec, limited corporations to withdrawing just 50,000 gallons of water per day before getting a required permit. And it imposed fees for obtaining the permit. New York’s version of the Compact (S3798) doubles the amount of water that corporations are allowed to extract with no permit, and imposes no fees.
But the bill contains loopholes that allow the fracking industry to escape even those limits.
“We estimate that if the hydrofracking industry were to segment their water delivery needs among various independent water haulers, the 100,000 gallon loophole would provide more than enough to fulfill their water needs for fracking, without the need for any permit,” said Kevin Bunger, a member of the Coalition to Protect New York, one of the grassroots groups opposed to the water withdrawal bill.
CPNY and other groups have filed a request under the state’s Freedom of Information Law for documents and information relating to closed-door meetings that resulted in the controversial water withdrawal bill. The legislation has had no public hearings and received no input from citizens and small business owners who will be directly affected by this landmark piece of legislation.
“We don’t understand why this bill was written in the first place,” said CPNY Spokesman Jack Ossont. “But we particularly don’t understand where the threshold limit came from that allows the oil and gas industry to take 100,000 gallons a day of our water for free, and with no real oversight.”
“Apparently environmentalists in Canada recognized what our own elected officials and mainstream environmental groups here in the US fail to see,” said Joe Hoff, Chairman of Keuka Citizens Against Hydrofracking . “This water withdrawal compact is masquerading as a pro-environment piece of legislation when it, in fact, gives the fracking industry, the water bottling industry and the chemical industry near total control over the public’s drinking water.”
As in Canada, opponents in New York presented strong legal arguments by water rights experts that the bill, which will determine water rights for small and large users for decades to come, will have unintended consequences at a time when oil and gas companies are targeting New York State for drilling for methane gas by hydrofracking. Fracking requires vast amounts of water. However, under the proposal being considered by the Senate, these oil and gas corporations will be able to extract billions of gallons of water from New York lakes, rivers and ponds free of charge.
The opponents will continue to urge its members to contact their local senators and urge them to open the process up and hold public hearings.
Copied in its entirety from ClimateSOS.org
MAINSTREAM GREENS CAVE IN ON CLIMATE:
Dangerously Allow Industry to Set Agenda
“Our friends have become the planet’s worst enemies” - Dr. James Hansen
With climate scientists warning that we are in a global emergency and tipping points leading to runaway catastrophe will be crossed unless carbon pollution is rapidly reduced , one would expect groups identified as environmental defenders to be shifting into high gear. Instead, we are witnessing the unspeakably tragic spectacle of a mainstream environmental movement allowing itself to be seduced and co-opted by the very forces it should be vehemently opposing. At the very moment when moral leadership and courage are needed the most, what we see is a colossal failure of both – with potentially irreversible consequences for our civilization.
If Congress chooses an inadequate response to the crisis, policies can get “locked in” which virtually guarantee that these tipping points are crossed. These organizations are using their significant financial resources to create a public impression that the “environmental community” has given its “stamp of approval” to this policy and to marginalize the voices of the genuine grassroots activists who represent the heart and soul of the climate movement. With nothing less than the future of the planet at stake, these groups must now be publicly challenged and held accountable for their actions.
The stage has been set for this necessary debate by publication of Johann Hari’s excellent commentary entitled “The Wrong Kind of Green” ( link: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20100322/hari/single ). In this piece, Hari provides important insight into some of the relevant history. He describes how in the 1980s and 1990s some of the larger environmental groups began to adopt a policy often called “corporate engagement”. The basic idea was that by participating in “partnerships” with corporations – some involving receipt of monetary contributions – there would be opportunity to exert positive influence.
It is not possible to look into the minds of those who promoted this shift. Perhaps there was a sincere hope that corporations would be moved toward more responsible behavior. Whatever the case, the critically important task at this time is not to evaluate possible motives but rather the real life consequences. To do so honestly, all self-interested blinders must be set aside.
The truth is that this policy has created a “slippery slope” leading to severely compromised stances – nowhere more apparent than in regard to the over-arching issue of climate. In 2007, a coalition was formed between corporations and environmental organizations called the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, or USCAP – whose purpose was to influence U.S. climate legislation. Some of the large groups that joined were Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), the Nature Conservancy, and National Wildlife Foundation. In January 2009, USCAP presented its proposals and these became the framework of the Waxman-Markey bill.
The physical context is that previously projected worst case scenarios are already being surpassed and humanity is running out of time. Ice is melting far more rapidly than expected, releasing the “albedo effect” where open water absorbs more heat and accelerates further melting. The normally quite cautious National Science Foundation is ringing alarm bells about the methane – a greenhouse gas over 30 times as powerful as CO2 – now venting from the Siberian seabeds (NSF press release: http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=116532&org=NSF&from=news ) . According to the NSF statement: “Release of even a fraction of the methane stored in the shelf could trigger abrupt climate warming.” These are only two examples of “reinforcing feedbacks” that can significantly move the process closer to tipping points.
Within a context so dire that in reality a war-time level of mobilization is needed, what kind of legislation is being offered? First of all, the emission reduction targets themselves - apart from the theoretical strategies for achieving them – categorically ignore the science. The goals do not even aim at stabilization at 350 ppm (let alone the lower figures more likely to be necessary) and the time frame for enacting meaningful reductions is not even remotely close to the speed needed to prevent disaster.
Beyond the issue of targets is that of reduction strategies. USCAP would like to see a trillion dollar carbon market put into place, where traders can claim “pollution rights” to the sky and seek profits from the exchange of such “rights”. Such a system – which would determine whether life-supporting ecosystems survive or collapse – would be placed into the same manipulative hands on Wall Street that brought on the financial meltdown. As this commentary goes to press, several traders in the European carbon market (the world’s prototype) have been arrested in connection with a massive fraud estimated at $6.75 billion. ( http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62T44K20100330 ) While some of us lay in the street in nonviolent civil disobedience to block this immoral atrocity (including one of the authors, 5 minute video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHJOOiyZR_s ), NRDC and EDF are sending their own people to promote it at carbon trade conferences.
The next immoral concession is to allow the industry to “buy” its way out of actually reducing emissions by supporting so-called “offsets” – such as forest preservation projects in the developing world. Sounding plausible in theory, offsets are actually riddled with verification issues and defects such as loggers simply moving elsewhere. But the bottomline “wrong” here is that any form of offsetting should never be looked at as an alternative to reducing emissions. It should only be seen as an additional action to take.
Then there is the unbelievable capitulation represented by the removal of EPA authority to regulate coal-burning. Now that the EPA has finally been empowered by the Supreme Court to act against a carbon-fueled ecocide, this ability has been effectively stripped from the House bill without a murmur from the USCAP “greens”. The result of all these concessions is a pathetically weak bill that the Congressional Budget Office estimates will not even begin to reduce emissions until 2018. Other studies indicate that if all available offsets are used, reductions could actually be postponed an astonishing 19 years until 2029. [link: http://www.fcnl.org/energy/pdfs/OffsetFlyer.pdf ]
The USCAP “greens” proclaim that their positions are being driven by “political expediency”. But there is a stunning “disconnect” which these groups have been reticent to address. How does one negotiate with a melting iceberg? Can the inexorable laws of physics be placed “on hold” while emission reductions are scuttled in a process of political “horse-trading”? What is the meaning of “expediency” when it leads to the collapse of society as we know it? John Schellnhuber, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Reseach, stated at the “4 Degrees and Beyond” conference at Oxford that “political reality must be grounded in physical reality or it is completely useless”.
The Sierra Club is experiencing what may be a positive change in leadership and to its credit has not adopted the policy of “corporate engagement” described, yet it has failed to truly mobilize its base against the dangerous shortcomings of the USCAP endorsed legislation. In 2008, the Sierra Club bestowed its highest honor – the John Muir Award – to climate scientist Dr. James Hansen. In presenting the award, Sierra Club President Allison Chin said: “He is truly a hero for preserving the environment”. How does the Sierra Club reconcile the honoring of this man for warning the world and then essentially ignore his core message that present climate legislation is based on false solutions that will waste precious time?
NRDC and EDF, on the other hand, have gone far beyond mere silence. While their websites claim a dedication to public service ( NRDC’s motto is “The Earth’s Best Defense”), they have been actively promoting the USCAP accomodation. If they had not lost sight of their original missions, they would have sought out members of Congress willing to stand up to the fossil fuel industry and used their resources (in 2008, NRDC had an operational budget of 87 million dollars) to throw weight behind them. Instead of emboldening this kind of voice, they have done the exact opposite by allowing industry to define what is “feasible”.
The real climate movement – the one with its backbone intact and composed of grassroots activists and principled groups like Friends of the Earth and Center for Biological Diversity – is already in a “David versus Goliath” situation as it tries to confront the most powerful lobby in the country. But that task has been made infinitely more difficult by these big budget groups using their money to isolate and “box in” the smaller ones.
We close this commentary with the following direct appeal to both the leadership and the members of these groups that have chosen the path of accommodation:
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
The verdict is in. Your experiment in “corporate engagement” has resulted in a disastrous failure that now threatens the planet. We fully expected the massive campaign from the fossil fuel industry to strip any substance from this legislation. But you have blindsided those of us who are fighting with all our hearts for the future of the earth. Your coffers have grown and now you are using this money to drown us out.
Your stance does not represent those in the grassroots movement, many of whom are young and see the disasters that are looming within their own lifetimes. In your comfortable offices, you do not speak for those willing to put themselves on the line and engage in nonviolent civil disobedience against the very forces you seek to accomodate. The rationale for your corporate “partnerships” was the issue of exerting influence. But the question begging to be asked is who influenced whom? Though your treasury is more full, what truly has been gained and what has been lost?
Your intentions may have been honorable, but the agenda of “defending earth” has been hijacked. Along the way, your vision became blurred and you lost sight of this mission. In this “experiment’, you are the ones who have been “had”. It now appears to have been a terrible Faustian bargain, and we are all paying the price. At the very moment of greatest need for an empowered public advocacy in the face of the most overwhelming threat in human history, your leadership is not to be found.
Your accommodation and your defense of abominably weak Congressional legislation has already had a destructive global impact. It was this legislation that set the bar intolerably low in Copenhagen and instigated a “race to the bottom”. The entire world-wide movement for climate sanity has become blocked by the denial, blindness, and paralysis embodied in U.S. climate policy. When you take this stance in the name of “defending the earth”, you are actually creating an insidious and dangerous deception.
For the sake of the planet, we appeal to your organizations to reclaim the integrity of your original visions. The position you presently advocate will squander the precious little time we have to implement true reductions before the irreversible tipping points are crossed. The stakes could not be higher. We ask that you join hands with the grassroots activists and groups and support the following eight points:
1) Officially recognize that we are truly in a global emergency and that irreversible tipping points are likely to be crossed if humanity does not act in time;
2) Officially recognize that this emergency is of such a magnitude that a war time level of mobilization is needed in order to effectively deal with it;
3) Stand squarely for the necessity that climate legislation be based on the setting of emission reduction targets and a time frame which are defined by the science;
4) Due to the severe ecosystem damage that will ensue in response to a 2 degree (celsius) rise, an overall goal of no more than one degree (celsius) rise must be sought;
5) Clearly renounce cap and trade and offsets as false solutions that will squander precious time;
6) Stand squarely against any attempt in Congress to strip EPA of its authority to regulate carbon;
7) Support a comprehensive approach to the crisis that combines elements of legislation, regulation, and public investment;
8) Support a legislative component based on a continually rising carbon fee with a 100% distribution of the proceeds to U.S. citizens, with the amount of the fee determined by an emission reduction schedule driven by science.
We also ask the members of these groups to withhold their organizational support until their leadership recognizes the necessity of these changes. On this defining issue of our time, may we strive to remove the barriers that divide us and work together.
- Gary Houser and Cory Morningstar
Gary Houser is a public interest writer, documentary producer, and activist with Climate SOS ( www.climatesos.org ) seeking to raise awareness within the religious community about the moral issues at stake (http://christianityandclimatecrisis.wordpress.com/2010/04/13/3/ ) and working to create a more empowered climate movement.
Cory Morningstar is an activist (and mom) with Canadians for Action on Climate Change ( http://canadianclimateaction.wordpress.com/about/ ) and has collated latest scientific findings at: http://timetobebold.wordpress.com/category/why-we-need-to-call-for-a-global-emergency/
Please visit ClimateSOS.org
In a current article titled, The Wrong Kind of Green, Johann Hari documents how over the last couple of decades, those big “environmental” organizations we always thought were acting in our interests have gradually become “owned” – that is, primarily influenced – by big corporate polluters. It’s reached the point where groups like Sierra Club and NRDC are actively, conspicuously partnering with corporations like Chesapeake and people like T Boone Pickens who are destroying the places we call home across the nation and around the world.
Many of us have given our hard-earned money to these organizations to save other places only to find now that they’re promoting shale gas extracted from our own home regions as a “bridge fuel.” The experience of other states across the country proves incontrovertibly that getting this bridge-to-nowhere fuel out of the ground, no matter how well the process is regulated, guarantees the destruction of land, water, air, and human & animal health. It also converts agricultural and forest land into a blighted industrial zone.
We don’t want the industrialization of New York’s rural areas
to be “better regulated.”
We want the only thing that will keep New York’s central regions
beautiful, healthy places to live, farm,
and raise our children and grandchildren.
We want a statewide ban.
Click on image to go to story and comments at indymedia.org