May 15
2012

Essay: Bottled Greenwash
By 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

See also http://gasmain.org/resources.htm#A%20Grassroots%20Perspective


 

Tags: , ,



Trackback  •  Posted in The Fox is Guarding the Henhouse, The Non-Profit Industrial Complex  


Jul 29
2009

Guest editorial – MB writes:


Here’s a quote from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s piece on wind turbines:

"All of us need periodically to experience wilderness to renew our
spirits and reconnect ourselves to the common history of our nation,
humanity and to God. The worst trap that environmentalists can fall
into is the conviction that the only wilderness worth preserving is in
the Rocky Mountains or Alaska. To the contrary, our most important
wildernesses are those that are closest to our densest population
centers, like Nantucket Sound."

.

Forested hills, lovely farmland, beautiful streams, rivers, lakes, and ponds, and clean air–all of these things abound in the Southern Tier of NY and Northeast PA. And–wonder of wonders–the area containing these clean and green treasures is home to millions of people and within easy traveling distance for millions more. What a great place to renew our spirits! Wow–if one didn’t know better, it would seem that Kennedy was writing about OUR region!!!

.

But no. It was Nantucket Sound he wanted to protect. From a wind farm.

.

I understand that wind farms present problems. I really do. Yet, frankly, at this point I would jump for joy if we could have wind farms instead of gas drilling. At least then any sacrifices we might make would be for truly clean and renewable energy and my husband and I wouldn’t have to worry about our house exploding, our water catching fire, our bodies being contaminated with endocrine disruptors and NORMS, our road being filled with dangerous truck traffic, our lungs being filled with smog, or the possibility that we might at some point be told to evacuate because of a gas well fire or a chemical spill or a pipeline explosion (assuming we had not already been killed by the fire or the spill or the explosion). And it’s bad enough that we–who have already had 25 good years here, will be subjected to the nightmare of drilling–what about the little kids who will grow up surrounded by it? Not to worry: I’m sure we can “mitigate” the damage caused to these children’s bodies and spirits by locking them inside (out of the smog) and having them watch videos of beautiful Nantucket Sound on their computer screens.

.

I used to think that Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. was a real environmentalist. I didn’t think he was just one more rich guy protecting his own turf at someone else’s expense. Guess I was mistaken.

Tags: , , ,



Trackback  •  Posted in General  


Jul 29
2009

In a July 27 post, Robert F Kennedy correctly lists some of the reasons we need to move away from burning coal for energy generation.   Unfortunately, his conclusion that the solution is to replace coal with natural gas is as erroneous as his convictions about coal are correct.

At http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-f-kennedy-jr/king-coal_b_245117.html he concludes:

“Natural gas comes with its own set of environmental caveats. It is a carbon-based fuel and [its] extraction from shale, the most significant new source, if not managed carefully, can cause serious water, land use, and wildlife impacts, especially in the hands of irresponsible producers and lax regulators. But those impacts are dwarfed by the disastrous holocaust of coal and can be mitigated by careful regulation.

“The giant advantage of a quick conversion from coal to gas is the quickest route for jumpstarting our economy and saving our planet.”

In response, SplashdownPA writes:

“It sounds reasonable, doesn’t it?
“All we need are responsible producers and vigilant regulators!

“Congress can’t even agree that this is necessary! Money isn’t there for environmental protection agencies to hire the number of inspectors necessary to monitor this lawless industry. And YES! coal mining and burning is dangerously toxic, but when Kennedy talks about enough affordable natural gas to last us into the next century, he’s supporting perpetuation of a carbon-based energy industry that has demonstrated it is unwilling to divert a nickel of its profits to safeguard our absolutely VITAL resources: WATER, AIR and LAND. Their best practices are simply NOT GOOD ENOUGH. Especially not a century’s worth!!!

“Closing coal fired plants would reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants by 20%.. BUT, what measure of CO2 and even more environmentally harmful methane is released into the atmosphere during extraction of natural gas, including toxic air polluting emissions from transporting the millions of gallons of water to and from well pads, treatment or burial of “produced water”, operating drilling rigs, compressors and other associated gas production equipment and activities, over and above emissions from well flares and finally, power plant emissions from energy generation from natural gas? How does all that stack up against that 20%?

“How too does Kennedy justify the permanent depletion and contamination of drinking water supplies across the country, occurring as a result of mining for gas? Surely he can’t think that indicating the need for responsibility and vigilance is going to suddenly manifest a new attitude on all fronts, by all players in this play?

“What guarantees do we have that a gluttonous industry won’t milk the quick fix dry, leaving us with an irrevocable permanent loss in exchange for temporary energy?

“There are important unanswered, and without drilling reform legislation in place, perhaps unanswerable questions. They loom like loopholes in his argument as we continue to learn how criminally untrustworthy corporate America is willing to be in pursuit of the almighty dollar. We’ve seen too how even regulations aren’t foolproof, and how when one entity acts outside the law it encourages others to follow suit.

“Meanwhile, the gas industry has already been irresponsible for deadly releases of toxins into the atmosphere, deadly releases of toxins into our waters, for killing and/or sickening livestock, wildlife and humans, for the seepage of toxic wastewater into our lands, contaminating land and water, the evaporation into the atmosphere of carcinogens from open sludgepits… in short, there isn’t anything healthy or friendly about the production of natural gas and turning a blind eye to the devastating problems of the lesser of two evils does not make the lesser evil any better.”

Read more at:

http://splashdownpa.blogspot.com/2009/07/king-coal-rf-kennedy-jr-weighs-in-on.html

Tags: , , , , , ,



Trackback  •  Posted in Easy Picken's, or, How Gullible IS That Politician or Celebrity, Anyway?, Legislation, Mean Energy