November, 15 2011, 12:51pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Kate Fried, Food & Water Watch, (202) 683.2500, kfried(at)fwwatch.org
New Analyses Show Oil and Gas Industry Is Inflating the Job-Creating Potential of Shale Gas Development
Food & Water Watch Study Shows One Job Claim Exaggerated by 900 Percent
WASHINGTON
Will the oil and gas industry create 1 million new jobs for Americans, as its latest advertisement claims? The American Petroleum Institute and major oil and gas corporations are spending millions to convince Americans that with unrestricted access to natural resources, they can lift us from our economic slump in part by fracking our nation's shale gas reserves. But Exposing the Oil and Gas Industry's False Jobs Promise for Shale Gas Development, a new set of analyses released today by the national consumer advocacy organization Food & Water Watch, finds that the oil and gas industry is exaggerating the capacity of shale gas development to generate jobs and economic opportunity for Americans, in one case exaggerating projected job creation by 900 percent.
"The oil and gas industry has tried to stand on three legs, claiming that shale gas is good for the environment, good for American energy security and good for the economy. The first two legs have already been kicked out, and our new analysis kicks out the third," said Food & Water Watch Executive Director Wenonah Hauter. "They have no legs left to stand on."
A 2011 report by the Public Policy Institute of New York State (PPINYS) claimed that by 2018, developing 500 new shale gas wells each year in five counties in New York would create 62,620 jobs. Food & Water Watch closely examined the PPINYS report and found it riddled with flaws; in fact, the economic forecasting model that PPINYS used actually only supported a claim of 6,656 jobs. PPINYS inflated the job-creation potential of shale gas development by almost 900 percent. According to Food & Water Watch, even the corrected PPINYS jobs projection is overly optimistic because it fails to account for negative effects that shale gas development would have on other key parts of the economy, such as agriculture and tourism.
Exposing the Oil and Gas Industry's False Jobs Promise for Shale Gas Development examines employment data, revealing that opening up five counties in the southern tier of New York to shale gas development can be expected to generate a net gain in employment of only about 2 jobs per well. This calculation, derived from data on actual employment, is in stark contrast with the forecast of 125 jobs per well in the PPINYS report. According to Food & Water Watch, an employment gain of just 2 jobs per shale gas well does not justify the inevitable costs to public health, public infrastructure and the environment that the industry would bring to New York.
Across the United States, shale gas development has generated a barrage of costly consequences:
-To date, over 1,000 cases of drinking water contamination have been reported near shale gas development sites around the U.S.
-In 2008, a fracking wastewater pit in Colorado leaked 1.6 million gallons of fluids, some of which contaminated the Colorado River.
-In Wise County, Texas, properties with fracking wells have lost 75 percent of their value.
-In 2009, Pennsylvania regulators ordered the Cabot Oil and Gas Corporation to cease all fracking in Dimock, Pa., after three spills at one well within a week polluted a wetland and endangered fish in a local creek. The spills leaked 8,420 gallons of fluids that contained potential carcinogens. The state fined the company $240,000, and it cost more than $10 million to deliver potable water to the affected homes. A legal battle has now ensued over who should be responsible for providing Dimock residents with clean water.
-Scientists have found that 25 percent of the hundreds of chemicals used in fracking can cause cancer, 37 percent can disrupt the endocrine system and 40 to 50 percent can affect the nervous, immune and cardiovascular systems.
-Fracking wells in Pennsylvania, a state with many active sites, are expected to create 19 million gallons of wastewater this year, yet many municipal treatment plants lack the capacity to treat fracking wastewater in part because it often contains radioactive elements.
Many of the flaws in the PPINYS report come from a series of studies led by Timothy Considine of the University of Wyoming. His series of studies have informed many evaluations of the economic potential of shale gas development by policymakers, including the U.S. Department of Energy's Shale Gas Subcommittee.
The industry's jobs projections are used to make the case for deregulation, but the oil and gas companies' recent record tells a different story. According to a report released in September by Congressman Ed Markey (D-Ma.), ExxonMobil, Chevron, BP, Shell and ConocoPhillips, all involved in shale gas development, paid their executives a total of nearly $220 million and recorded $73 billion in profits in 2010. However, the Big 5 oil companies reduced their global workforce by a combined 4,400 employees that same year.
"While President Obama's recent move to delay his decision on the Keystone XL Pipeline is a sign that his administration is attuned to public concern about the negative effects of tar sands, we hope he will not replace it with shale gas development," said Hauter. "The oil and gas industry has exploited our economic woes to promote shale gas, yet actual employment data shows that it is not a cure-all for our nation's economic challenges; the money to be made from shale gas development will mostly just benefit oil and gas executives."
Exposing the Oil and Gas Industry's False Jobs Promise for Shale Gas Development is available here.
Food & Water Watch mobilizes regular people to build political power to move bold and uncompromised solutions to the most pressing food, water, and climate problems of our time. We work to protect people's health, communities, and democracy from the growing destructive power of the most powerful economic interests.
(202) 683-2500LATEST NEWS
Steven Donziger, Lawyer Targeted by Chevron, Appeals to Biden for Pardon
"A pardon would bring a measure of justice to a prosecution that has been widely criticized as a violation of international law... and as a grave threat to free speech," said 14 attorneys backing the climate justice lawyer's request.
Mar 20, 2024
After exhausting his options in the judicial system, American attorney Steven Donziger on Wednesday launched a campaign seeking a pardon from U.S. President Joe Biden for his misdemeanor conviction—the result of a process that experts worldwide have condemned as retaliatory for his climate justice work and an abuse of the nation's judiciary.
"No matter where one stands on the political spectrum, we should all be able to agree that what happened to me in the United States should not happen to anybody in any country that adheres to the rule of law," Donziger said in a statement announcing a letter to Biden signed by 14 prominent lawyers and a leader at the advocacy group Amazon Watch.
"Corporations should not be allowed to take direct control of a public prosecution from the government and lock up their critics, as happened to me," asserted Donziger, who spent 993 days in federal prison and on house arrest. "It's an outrageous abuse of power that not only wrecked me and my family's life for three years but also embarrassed our country in the eyes of the world."
"As far as we can tell, this was the nation's first private corporate prosecution and is an obvious violation of the rule of law."
Donziger is a Harvard Law School graduate known globally for representing farmers and Indigenous people in a lawsuit targeting Chevron for polluting communities in Ecuador that resulted in a $9.5 billion judgment against the oil giant. After nearly two decades of battling the attorney in Ecuadorian courts, the company went after him directly in U.S. federal court.
The attorneys backing his pardon request detailed in their letter how Donziger endured a "patently biased prosecution by a group of three Chevron-linked lawyers" for refusing to comply with an order from a U.S. judge—an ex-corporate attorney with investments in the oil giant—to turn over his electronics and client communications to the company.
"As far as we can tell, this was the nation's first private corporate prosecution and is an obvious violation of the rule of law," they wrote to Biden. "As a result of the private prosecution, Mr. Donziger, a resident of New York City, spent close to three years in detention at home and in prison even though the maximum sentence under the law for his misdemeanor offense level was 180 days."
"A pardon would bring a measure of justice to a prosecution that has been widely criticized as a violation of international law by respected international and U.S.-based jurists, and as a grave threat to free speech by a multitude of political leaders and over 120 respected civil society organizations including Amnesty International, Global Witness, and Greenpeace," the lawyers argued.
Critics of the process that resulted in his conviction include the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention; a team of international trial observers led by Stephen A. Rapp, U.S. ambassador for war crimes under the Obama administration; Judge Steven Menashi, appointed to U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit by former President Donald Trump; and right-wing U.S. Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, who dissented from a decision not to take his case.
"I am inspired by Steven's courage, resilience, and determination," said Paul Paz y Miño of Amazon Watch, who signed the 12-page letter along with the group of attorneys. "That's why Chevron wants to destroy him. Steven's very existence creates enormous financial risk to Chevron and to the oil industry generally. Every fossil fuel industry lawyer in this country fears Steven."
"More broadly, Chevron's outrageous abuse of power and manipulation of the federal judiciary to target Steven should deeply concern every advocate in the country, particularly those who engage in protest," Paz y Miño warned. "What happened to Steven is a central component of the fossil fuel industry's playbook to silence public opposition."
Water Protector Legal Collective director Natali Segovia, one of the lawyers who signed on, similarly condemned legal tactics used by corporations to target environmental campaigners.
"Around the world, human rights defenders like Steven Donziger are targeted and even killed for their advocacy and work on Indigenous rights and environmental justice issues," Segovia said. "Steven's case, however, is emblematic of the weaponization of the law by a powerful corporation against a human rights defender—an attorney, to be exact—and sets a dangerous precedent."
"If it could happen to Steven, a Harvard-trained human rights lawyer, it could happen to anyone on climate frontlines."
"If it could happen to Steven, a Harvard-trained human rights lawyer, it could happen to anyone on climate frontlines," Segovia stressed. "This is what we are guarding against. This is why a pardon for Steven barely hits the tip of the iceberg to reverse course, but is a necessary step in ensuring fundamental rights of due process and human rights in the United States."
The other lawyers supporting Donziger—who hail from prestigious universities and groups such as the Center for Constitutional Rights—are Nadia Ahmad, Baher Azmy, Scott Wilson Badenoch, Terrence Collingsworth, Aaron Fellmeth, Richard Friedman, Martin Garbus, Jeffrey Haas, Ronald Kuby, Jeanne Mirer, Aaron Marr Page, Nadine Strossen, and Michael Tigar.
Along with thanking "from the bottom of my heart the many distinguished lawyers who have agreed to represent me in this campaign," Donziger called on the Biden administration to investigate Chevron for abusing the U.S. legal system.
Donziger also said that it remains "critical that people focus on what is of paramount importance, which is the plight of the thousands of people in Ecuador who face a serious risk of death if Chevron does not comply with the rule of law."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Biden EPA Accused of Caving to Big Auto, Big Oil by Weakening Historic Car Emissions Rule
The agency "riddled the plan with loopholes big enough to drive a Ford F-150 through," said one critic.
Mar 20, 2024
The Biden administration received a mixture of praise and criticism from green groups on Wednesday after the Environmental Protection Agency unveiled new tailpipe pollution standards for passenger cars and light-duty trucks.
The finalized rules were simultaneously described as the strongest ever of their kind and a disappointing step backward compared to the EPA's original proposal and what experts say is possible—and necessary—to combat the climate crisis.
The new tailpipe standards would strengthen emissions limits more slowly than the EPA's original proposal, which came under fire from the auto industry and Big Oil. The American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM) falsely claimed the EPA's proposed standards amounted to an effort to "ban new gas, diesel, and flex-fuel vehicles from the U.S. market."
AFPM and the American Petroleum Institute threatened to challenge the finalized standards in court.
As The New York Timesreported Wednesday, the finalized rule "does not mandate the sales of electric vehicles, and gas-powered cars and trucks could still be sold."
"Rather," the Times explained, "it requires carmakers to meet tough new average emissions limits across their entire product line. It's up to the manufacturers to decide how to comply... EPA officials said automakers could comply with the emissions caps by selling a mix of conventional gasoline-burning cars, hybrids, electric vehicles, or other types of vehicles, such as cars powered by hydrogen."
Dan Becker, director of the Center for Biological Diversity's Safe Climate Transport Campaign, said in a statement that "this rule could've been the biggest single step of any nation on climate, but the EPA caved to pressure from Big Auto, Big Oil, and car dealers and riddled the plan with loopholes big enough to drive a Ford F-150 through."
"In exchange for making EVs, the rule allows automakers to produce tens of millions of new gas-guzzlers with few or no carbon cuts," said Becker. "These cars, SUVs, and pickups will dominate sales through much of this decade, guzzling and polluting into the middle of the century."
"It made improvements but is coming up well short, which is deeply disappointing at a time when we need ever-stronger climate leadership."
Public Citizen also accused the Biden EPA of weakening the vehicle emissions standards to appease the auto industry. One industry trade group, Alliance for Automotive Innovation, applauded the administration for "moderating the pace of EV adoption in 2027, 2028, 2029, and 2030."
Chelsea Hodgkins, a senior policy advocate for Public Citizen, said that while "more vehicle pollution will be avoided and more lives saved" under the new rules "than would have been under current regulations," the EPA's new standards fall "far short of what is needed to protect public health and our planet."
"We are in a crisis, and clean vehicle technology that will help solve it is here and available now," said Hodgkins. "The Biden administration had the opportunity to shift the automotive industry away from a model that's driving record profits for automakers while literally killing us, toward one that still provides strong profits but keeps the world safer for humans. It made improvements but is coming up well short, which is deeply disappointing at a time when we need ever-stronger climate leadership."
Transportation is the largest single source of air pollution in the U.S., spewing benzene and other toxins into the environment to the detriment of the climate and public health.
The EPA estimates its standards would help the U.S. avoid more than 7 billion tons of carbon emissions and reap $13 billion worth of public health benefits "due to improved air quality."
Steven Higashide, director of the Clean Transportation Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists, described the EPA's new rules as "the strongest standards ever finalized and vital for meeting U.S. climate goals" and said they would "shift the trajectory of the automobile market and put us on a path to real emissions reductions."
"However, EPA should have gone even further because we have the technology to be more ambitious," said Higashide. "The science is clear on both the urgent need to cut climate-endangering emissions and the fact that we can make the cuts we need. We don't have many opportunities to reduce transportation pollution and it's disappointing that this rule falls short of what's possible. We'll continue to push the administration to create, implement, and enforce the strongest rules possible."
The EPA unveiled its finalized standards weeks after the agency opted in the face of industry pressure to delay a regulatory crackdown on existing gas-fired power plants, exempting them from a separate anti-pollution rule.
The EPA's moves come during a critical election year in which the presumptive Republican nominee, former President Donald Trump, and his allies are threatening to undo any climate progress the Biden administration makes if they regain power.
A recent analysis by Carbon Brief estimated that a second Trump term would likely result in an additional 4 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions at a time when quickly slashing planet-warming pollution is necessary to avoid the worst of the climate emergency.
Trump has vowed to roll back the EPA's tailpipe emissions standards on day two of a second term and warned during a campaign rally over the weekend that the reelection of President Joe Biden would mean a "bloodbath" for the U.S. auto industry.
The United Auto Workers, which has endorsed Biden and vocally pushed for a just transition to electric vehicles, welcomed the EPA's new pollution standards on Wednesday, saying the agency "has made significant progress on its final greenhouse gas emissions rule for light-duty vehicles."
The UAW criticized the original proposal and urged the EPA to make changes to "ensure the new rules do not disproportionately impact domestic union auto production."
"By taking seriously the concerns of workers and communities," the union said in a statement Wednesday, "the EPA has come a long way to create a more feasible emissions rule that protects workers building [internal combustion engine] vehicles, while providing a path forward for automakers to implement the full range of automotive technologies to reduce emissions."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Dems Urged to Oppose Ex-Manchin Staffer for Top Environmental Post
"David Rosner was a paid cheerleader for the LNG boom before it was fashionable," said Friends of the Earth campaigner Lukas Ross.
Mar 20, 2024
The environmental group Friends of the Earth on Wednesday called on U.S. senators to oppose one of President Joe Biden's regulatory nominees, citing his "disturbing pattern of dirty energy advocacy."
Last month, Biden nominated West Virginia Solicitor-General Lindsay See, energy economics and policy expert Judy Chang, and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission analyst David Rosner to serve on FERC's five-member executive body. Chang and Rosner are Democrats. See is a Republican, as there can be no more than three commissioners from the same party.
Friends of the Earth (FOE)—which will publish an online ad urging senators to reject Rosner—noted that the nominee is a former staffer for Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), one of the most fossil fuel-friendly members of Congress, and that he previously worked at the Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC), "where he sided with industry over consumers and the climate on multiple energy issues. BPC
funders include BP, Chevron, Conoco, and Shell."
"David Rosner was a paid cheerleader for the LNG boom before it was fashionable," said Lukas Ross, FOE's deputy climate and energy director, referring to the nominee's support for liquefied natural gas exports. "We're calling on Democrats not named Manchin to reject this nomination."
Noting the senator's decision to not seek reelection this year, Ross added that "letting Joe Manchin control FERC from beyond his political grave should be a nonstarter for every other Democrat in the caucus."
The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee is set to hold a heading for the FERC nominees on Thursday morning. Manchin, who chairs the committee, backs Rosner. Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), the ranking member on the committee, has voiced support for See, while praising Rosner, who "has worked constructively with my staff."
If See and Rosner are confirmed as commissioners, FERC would have a pro-fossil fuel majority. Democratic Chair Willie Phillips has led a wave of fossil fuel project approvals, while Republican Commissioner Mark Christie is a reliable booster for oil, gas, and coal.
Progressive lawmakers and environmental campaigners have been increasingly critical of FERC, with Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) calling it a "completely captured agency."
"The commission is captured by the fossil fuel industry. There is no other explanation for how FERC could approve over 99% of the fossil fuel projects it reviews in the face of climate catastrophe," Merkley said after the body greenlighted TC Energy's proposed expansion of methane gas infrastructure in the Pacific Northwest. "FERC needs fundamental reform."
Roishetta Ozane, founder of Louisiana environmental justice group Vessel Project, wrote in an opinion piece published Wednesday by Common Dreams that "as we transition to a future without fossil fuels, it's clear that major change is needed at FERC."
"While the new commissioners at FERC go through the confirmation process, they must show they are dedicated to more than just the basic criteria of the job," Ozane added. "We hope to see the commissioners eager to pave a new path forward by prioritizing justice: environmental justice and climate justice."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular