(*spoiler: complicate public avenues for complaint, bury complaints,
lose complaints... smother valid research with paid-for reports,
manipulate perception by using those paid-for reports as standard
reference in Press... belittle complainants, demonise protest...
under-fund and under-resource Regulators so they are ineffective,
put reporting responsibility in hands of industry itself, put more
money into politics and legal cases than any residents can, instigate
procedures that take time and succeed in nothing more than pacifying
worried residents +++)
...............................................................................................................
Was reading about regulators etc and ended up in all sorts of places during the research... strange thing was though that so many of the research routes covered similar landscapes of process ...complete with repeating landmarks on all the horizons of an industry's journey into our communities.
Our world contains so many preventable harms we've not known or seen; it wasn't till I unravelled the processes involved in just one (fracking) that I come to realise it is essentially a replica and there's a sort-of blueprint for getting away with causing harm - and avoiding consequences.
Today I'm reading and seeing the basic pattern that is shared between just two stories - Fracking & Pig Manure (article ink at end). Take this snippet for example and spot the patterns with whatever environmentally damaging industry you're looking into:
[The Regulator told Mr Burdette that the images were inadequate proof. “They were basically saying, ‘There’s nothing we can do,’” he said. “They can’t stand behind evidence collected by somebody else.” Nor did they have funds to do their own surveys. For evidence, the Regulator said it could only review the company's self-reported logs. And in November when Burdette and others followed up, they say all public traces of their complaints had disappeared.
For years, residents say, regulators shielded the identities of polluters, burying public complaints against them and leaving those who lived nearby with few avenues for redress. The Industry Council, in a 2019 letter to the Regulator, said the “relatively minimal number of violations” in the state signalled “a robust and working regulatory system”.
As the industry grew, the state legislature protected it in numerous ways, even barring counties from restricting industry during the key expansion years. But lawmakers couldn’t ignore the mounting waste, particularly when it polluted waterways.
A study published by the Medical Journal concluded that families living nearby saw higher rates of infant mortality and deaths from anaemia, kidney disease, and tuberculosis.
The industry insists that health concerns are exaggerated. “We don’t think these types of symptoms or things are going on in the communities where we do business,” a Director said in a deposition in reference to an older study that had found increased depression, anger, and confusion among neighbours... “There are studies that can say almost anything,” he added.
In 2014 they passed a law keeping complaints filed with the state environmental agency confidential unless the department “determines that a violation has occurred”. A State representative said the provision was designed to protect industry from false accusations.
The Regulator interpreted the law to require disclosure of a complaint only when there’s a formal violation notice or penalty, which the agency has historically been loth to initiate. “We believe [that] if they find a violation of the permit, they just tell the operator, ‘Hey, this doesn’t look right. You need to address it” said the Managing Attorney.
Feeling unprotected by regulator, residents living nearby have turned to the courts, with more than two dozen lawsuits by more than 500 plaintiffs. Others looked to the machinery of government to hold the Regulator accountable. The Council described the complaints as part of a “coordinated, multi-pronged attack on the industry”.
Investigators visited and interviewed more than 60 neighbours. The residents described strong stenches that made them gag, vomit, and lock themselves indoors. Several also mentioned keeping silent, because “for more than 15 years, the government has been well aware of the conditions they have to live with, but has done nothing to help, so complaining would be futile,” Those who did complain reported “threats, intimidation, and harassment” by the industry.
The Regulator declined to comment when asked if it had adopted a more aggressive policy. Advocates describe a “bunker mentality” at the agency – a fear of appearing too proactive. For example, the Regulator missed its own deadline for creating the mapping tool. It then said the tool was “educational” and “not intended for regulatory purposes”.
“What the hell good is a community-mapping programme if it’s not going to slow down the degradation?”]
..........................
Linkto Pig Farming piece that shows the similarities to fracking when dealing with harm to community and avoiding liability: https://
...............................................................................................................
Was reading about regulators etc and ended up in all sorts of places during the research... strange thing was though that so many of the research routes covered similar landscapes of process ...complete with repeating landmarks on all the horizons of an industry's journey into our communities.
Our world contains so many preventable harms we've not known or seen; it wasn't till I unravelled the processes involved in just one (fracking) that I come to realise it is essentially a replica and there's a sort-of blueprint for getting away with causing harm - and avoiding consequences.
Today I'm reading and seeing the basic pattern that is shared between just two stories - Fracking & Pig Manure (article ink at end). Take this snippet for example and spot the patterns with whatever environmentally damaging industry you're looking into:
[The Regulator told Mr Burdette that the images were inadequate proof. “They were basically saying, ‘There’s nothing we can do,’” he said. “They can’t stand behind evidence collected by somebody else.” Nor did they have funds to do their own surveys. For evidence, the Regulator said it could only review the company's self-reported logs. And in November when Burdette and others followed up, they say all public traces of their complaints had disappeared.
For years, residents say, regulators shielded the identities of polluters, burying public complaints against them and leaving those who lived nearby with few avenues for redress. The Industry Council, in a 2019 letter to the Regulator, said the “relatively minimal number of violations” in the state signalled “a robust and working regulatory system”.
As the industry grew, the state legislature protected it in numerous ways, even barring counties from restricting industry during the key expansion years. But lawmakers couldn’t ignore the mounting waste, particularly when it polluted waterways.
A study published by the Medical Journal concluded that families living nearby saw higher rates of infant mortality and deaths from anaemia, kidney disease, and tuberculosis.
The industry insists that health concerns are exaggerated. “We don’t think these types of symptoms or things are going on in the communities where we do business,” a Director said in a deposition in reference to an older study that had found increased depression, anger, and confusion among neighbours... “There are studies that can say almost anything,” he added.
In 2014 they passed a law keeping complaints filed with the state environmental agency confidential unless the department “determines that a violation has occurred”. A State representative said the provision was designed to protect industry from false accusations.
The Regulator interpreted the law to require disclosure of a complaint only when there’s a formal violation notice or penalty, which the agency has historically been loth to initiate. “We believe [that] if they find a violation of the permit, they just tell the operator, ‘Hey, this doesn’t look right. You need to address it” said the Managing Attorney.
Feeling unprotected by regulator, residents living nearby have turned to the courts, with more than two dozen lawsuits by more than 500 plaintiffs. Others looked to the machinery of government to hold the Regulator accountable. The Council described the complaints as part of a “coordinated, multi-pronged attack on the industry”.
Investigators visited and interviewed more than 60 neighbours. The residents described strong stenches that made them gag, vomit, and lock themselves indoors. Several also mentioned keeping silent, because “for more than 15 years, the government has been well aware of the conditions they have to live with, but has done nothing to help, so complaining would be futile,” Those who did complain reported “threats, intimidation, and harassment” by the industry.
The Regulator declined to comment when asked if it had adopted a more aggressive policy. Advocates describe a “bunker mentality” at the agency – a fear of appearing too proactive. For example, the Regulator missed its own deadline for creating the mapping tool. It then said the tool was “educational” and “not intended for regulatory purposes”.
“What the hell good is a community-mapping programme if it’s not going to slow down the degradation?”]
..........................
Linkto Pig Farming piece that shows the similarities to fracking when dealing with harm to community and avoiding liability: https://
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for taking the time to add your voice to mine x