Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

Pennsylvania Gas Driller: Our Operations Pose No Health Risk. You Can’t Be Serious, Activists Say.

News Feed
Tuesday, September 24, 2024

CNX Resources Corporation, a major Pennsylvania natural gas producer, has racked up air quality violations by the hundreds and three years ago pleaded no contest to criminal charges of skirting state pollution laws for years by misreporting air emissions at one of its facilities.  The case against CNX was brought by Josh Shapiro, then the state’s attorney general and now its governor. At the time, Shapiro’s office called CNX’s behavior “fraudulent.” Now, CNX is doing its best to resurrect itself as a white knight in the fossil fuel trade, and as proof offering up an industry-written study it says demonstrates its fracking operations pose “no public health risks.” The study was born from a partnership that CNX inked last year with its old nemesis — Shapiro.   The study, nicknamed “Radical Transparency” by the natural gas operator, has struck a nerve with climate activists who dismissed it as pseudoscience that flies in the face of peer-reviewed research as well as a 2020 grand jury report that found children and adults who lived near fracking sites were prone to intense nose bleeds, ulcers and rashes. Drinking water near the fracking sites was sometimes rust-colored or filled with sediment, it said. And airborne chemicals burned the throats of residents and irritated their skin. The latter effect even earned a nickname among residents: “frack rash.” “First, we allowed the timber in our Commonwealth to be plundered. Then it was our coal. Now it’s shale. Other industries will certainly come our way, for some new natural resource to exploit. This is the time to learn our lesson for the future: Who will bear the inevitable risks? We say it should be those who exploit the resources, not those who live among them,” the grand jury report said. CNX’s study, which was released to investors in August, comes as the energy giant is trying to curry favor with the governor by pitching itself as an environmental justice leader and win federal funds for the production of hydrogen from the Inflation Reduction Act, President Biden’s signature legislation to accelerate the transition away from fossil fuels. Billions of dollars are in play. Indeed, CNX’s ongoing “Radical Transparency” project has already been added to a list of energy producer initiatives that stand to receive a portion of $30 million in public funds allocated to a forthcoming hydrogen hub in Appalachia. These funds are being doled out by Biden’s Justice40 initiative, which is aimed at ensuring clean energy efforts — such as an envisioned Appalachian hydrogen hub — benefit low-income communities already overburdened by pollution.  Gov. Shapiro ran for office on the promise of “a low carbon future” but has since tried to walk a fine line between the wishes of climate activists and powerful fossil fuel interests.  A group of 40 environmental organizations, as well as state Sen. Katie Muth, have submitted a letter to the U.S. Department of Energy in which they express their opposition to the inclusion of CNX’s “Radical Transparency” on the list of projects vying for the federal funds. “The ‘Radical Transparency’ program is a cynical attempt to undermine those harmed by fracking by discrediting the thousands of peer-reviewed papers, government reports and media investigations that have demonstrated grave harms fracking poses to health, safety, the environment and climate,” the letter says. Shapiro ran for office on the promise of “a low carbon future” but has since tried to walk a fine line between the wishes of climate activists and the state’s powerful fossil fuel interests. He has not taken a firm stand but has indicated he believes there’s room for the oil and gas industry in what’s billed as the coming hydrogen revolution. Hydrogen is a powerful source of energy but is only considered emission-free if it’s produced with renewable energy, such as solar and wind. CNX intends to use the carbon captured from its wells to produce hydrogen. But if “Radical Transparency” was intended to win over doubters, it has not impressed climate activists, who have asked Shapiro to renounce it. “CNX’s radically dishonest and irresponsible fracking report fails the fundamental tests of scientific integrity,” Alex Bomstein, executive director of Clean Air Council, wrote in a press release. “The Shapiro administration should immediately disavow the report and distance itself from this propaganda.” The Shapiro administration did not respond to inquiries from Capital & Main. In its report to investors, CNX said it had monitored a selection of fracking sites and tested for emissions from five chemicals that have been linked to respiratory illness, neurological damage and cancer, including particulate matter, benzene, toluene, xylene and ethylbenzene. The data, which is shared in real time with residents and government officials alike, was compared to several metrics, including National Ambient Air Quality Standards, Minimum Risk Levels for hazardous substances, and pollution concentrations in an urban neighborhood in Pittsburgh.  “I think from the beginning, this initiative was oversold.” ~ David Hess, former secretary of the Pennsylvania Dept. of Environmental Protection  “The initial results and ongoing monitoring from our Radical Transparency program indicate that natural gas development done the CNX way is safe and inherently good for the communities where we operate,” CNX President and CEO Nick Deiuliis wrote in the report.  CNX said its monitoring project has provided “hundreds of thousands of additional data points.” But the report focuses on just two well pads: NV110, which houses seven natural gas wells, and MOR9, which houses 10. The company worked with a third party, the environmental consulting firm Clean Air Engineering, to install two air monitors at each site — one upwind and the other downwind. CNX has committed to monitoring each site for at least six months.  David Hess, former secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection and author of the daily PA Environment Digest blog, said the setup of the testing project alone gives him pause.  “You only get a very narrow slice of what’s coming off any of those facilities,” Hess said. “If you wanted to do a very robust monitoring program, you would ring the entire site with monitors.”  Hess said a robust emissions study would have collected more data, and the testing would have lasted far longer before the announcement of any conclusions. He said the study should have lasted at least a full year, since each season “has an impact on what happens to pollutants and where they fall.”  “I think from the beginning, this initiative was oversold,” Hess said.  Some health care professionals said CNX can’t reasonably make such sweeping conclusions without studying the health conditions of people living near the pollutants.  “The correct conclusion is that they failed to detect the five chemicals that they were looking for in very high concentrations,” said Dr. Ned Ketyer, president of Physicians for Social Responsibility Pennsylvania, a nonprofit advocacy group. “That’s the only thing that they can conclude. They can’t conclude that fracking is safe.”  “Their ‘radical transparency’ idea is really not at all transparent.” ~ Dr. Ned Ketyer, president, Physicians for Social Responsibility Pennsylvania  One of the two sites surveyed in the project drew the attention of government officials as recently as March, when Department of Environmental Protection inspectors visited the site after receiving complaints from a resident about suspected water contamination — a category of pollution that CNX has committed to studying but did not account for in “Radical Transparency.” The state’s Department of Environmental Protection has not issued a notice of violation, but a spokesperson told Capital & Main that the resident’s complaint met “the conditions for creating a rebuttable presumption that a well operator is responsible for water pollution.” CNX disputed the claim. Following the inspection, CNX was ordered to install an alternate water source for the resident while the investigation continues. “Their ‘radical transparency’ idea is really not at all transparent,” Ketyer said.  Ketyer said he believes CNX’s rosy report was issued not as a good faith effort to advance science, but to appease investors ahead of a ratings downgrade from investment bank Piper Sandler, which came the day after CNX issued its release.  Dr. Kathleen Nolan, co-author of the compendium on the risks of fracking and co-founder of Concerned Health Professionals of New York, said CNX’s report does not note whether there was a third-party review, which is standard for scientific papers. Though the emissions data may have averaged out to an acceptable level, they tended to spike in ways that Nolan believes would have been worth investigating. It is unclear whether CNX did that, and the gas producer did not respond to Capital & Main’s requests for comment.  “Using real time continuous readout is essential if you’re going to monitor particulate matter,” she said. But CNX’s study is simply “documenting something, but not necessarily intervening in a way to be protective.”  Protection from pollution is what Shapiro’s office sought to provide Pennsylvania residents when it enlisted CNX in 2023 to “definitively” measure emissions and strengthen chemical disclosures at a selection of its wells. As part of the partnership, CNX also agreed to a suite of concessions that mimicked the eight recommendations in the 2020 grand jury report, which found that state regulators had failed to protect residents from the fracking boom. CNX agreed to move its fracking infrastructure an additional 100 feet beyond the legally mandated 500-foot distance from homes and 2,500-foot distance from hospitals and schools. The grand jury also recommended that oil and gas operators be required to identify all the chemicals used in their operations. CNX and other operators are generally allowed to redact the names of chemicals they consider to be “trade secrets.” Environmentalists have urged Shapiro’s office to reject the CNX project and adopt the grand jury recommendations instead.  “He’s completely ignoring residents near these CNX sites,” said Shannon Smith, executive director of the nonprofit environmental group FracTracker Alliance. “He knows damn well what the health risks and the impacts are. He’s articulated it in many words, many times as attorney general.” Copyright 2024 Capital & Main

With billions up for grabs and scores of air quality violations to its name, CNX tries to recast itself as a climate warrior. The post Pennsylvania Gas Driller: Our Operations Pose No Health Risk. You Can’t Be Serious, Activists Say. appeared first on .

CNX Resources Corporation, a major Pennsylvania natural gas producer, has racked up air quality violations by the hundreds and three years ago pleaded no contest to criminal charges of skirting state pollution laws for years by misreporting air emissions at one of its facilities. 

The case against CNX was brought by Josh Shapiro, then the state’s attorney general and now its governor. At the time, Shapiro’s office called CNX’s behavior “fraudulent.”

Now, CNX is doing its best to resurrect itself as a white knight in the fossil fuel trade, and as proof offering up an industry-written study it says demonstrates its fracking operations pose “no public health risks.” The study was born from a partnership that CNX inked last year with its old nemesis — Shapiro.
 



 
The study, nicknamed “Radical Transparency” by the natural gas operator, has struck a nerve with climate activists who dismissed it as pseudoscience that flies in the face of peer-reviewed research as well as a 2020 grand jury report that found children and adults who lived near fracking sites were prone to intense nose bleeds, ulcers and rashes. Drinking water near the fracking sites was sometimes rust-colored or filled with sediment, it said. And airborne chemicals burned the throats of residents and irritated their skin. The latter effect even earned a nickname among residents: “frack rash.”

“First, we allowed the timber in our Commonwealth to be plundered. Then it was our coal. Now it’s shale. Other industries will certainly come our way, for some new natural resource to exploit. This is the time to learn our lesson for the future: Who will bear the inevitable risks? We say it should be those who exploit the resources, not those who live among them,” the grand jury report said.

CNX’s study, which was released to investors in August, comes as the energy giant is trying to curry favor with the governor by pitching itself as an environmental justice leader and win federal funds for the production of hydrogen from the Inflation Reduction Act, President Biden’s signature legislation to accelerate the transition away from fossil fuels. Billions of dollars are in play.

Indeed, CNX’s ongoing “Radical Transparency” project has already been added to a list of energy producer initiatives that stand to receive a portion of $30 million in public funds allocated to a forthcoming hydrogen hub in Appalachia. These funds are being doled out by Biden’s Justice40 initiative, which is aimed at ensuring clean energy efforts — such as an envisioned Appalachian hydrogen hub — benefit low-income communities already overburdened by pollution.
 


Gov. Shapiro ran for office on the promise of “a low carbon future” but has since tried to walk a fine line between the wishes of climate activists and powerful fossil fuel interests.


 
A group of 40 environmental organizations, as well as state Sen. Katie Muth, have submitted a letter to the U.S. Department of Energy in which they express their opposition to the inclusion of CNX’s “Radical Transparency” on the list of projects vying for the federal funds.

“The ‘Radical Transparency’ program is a cynical attempt to undermine those harmed by fracking by discrediting the thousands of peer-reviewed papers, government reports and media investigations that have demonstrated grave harms fracking poses to health, safety, the environment and climate,” the letter says.

Shapiro ran for office on the promise of “a low carbon future” but has since tried to walk a fine line between the wishes of climate activists and the state’s powerful fossil fuel interests. He has not taken a firm stand but has indicated he believes there’s room for the oil and gas industry in what’s billed as the coming hydrogen revolution. Hydrogen is a powerful source of energy but is only considered emission-free if it’s produced with renewable energy, such as solar and wind. CNX intends to use the carbon captured from its wells to produce hydrogen.

But if “Radical Transparency” was intended to win over doubters, it has not impressed climate activists, who have asked Shapiro to renounce it.

“CNX’s radically dishonest and irresponsible fracking report fails the fundamental tests of scientific integrity,” Alex Bomstein, executive director of Clean Air Council, wrote in a press release. “The Shapiro administration should immediately disavow the report and distance itself from this propaganda.”

The Shapiro administration did not respond to inquiries from Capital & Main.

In its report to investors, CNX said it had monitored a selection of fracking sites and tested for emissions from five chemicals that have been linked to respiratory illness, neurological damage and cancer, including particulate matter, benzene, toluene, xylene and ethylbenzene.

The data, which is shared in real time with residents and government officials alike, was compared to several metrics, including National Ambient Air Quality Standards, Minimum Risk Levels for hazardous substances, and pollution concentrations in an urban neighborhood in Pittsburgh.
 


“I think from the beginning, this initiative was oversold.”

~ David Hess, former secretary of the Pennsylvania Dept. of Environmental Protection

 
“The initial results and ongoing monitoring from our Radical Transparency program indicate that natural gas development done the CNX way is safe and inherently good for the communities where we operate,” CNX President and CEO Nick Deiuliis wrote in the report. 

CNX said its monitoring project has provided “hundreds of thousands of additional data points.” But the report focuses on just two well pads: NV110, which houses seven natural gas wells, and MOR9, which houses 10. The company worked with a third party, the environmental consulting firm Clean Air Engineering, to install two air monitors at each site — one upwind and the other downwind. CNX has committed to monitoring each site for at least six months. 

David Hess, former secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection and author of the daily PA Environment Digest blog, said the setup of the testing project alone gives him pause. 

“You only get a very narrow slice of what’s coming off any of those facilities,” Hess said. “If you wanted to do a very robust monitoring program, you would ring the entire site with monitors.” 

Hess said a robust emissions study would have collected more data, and the testing would have lasted far longer before the announcement of any conclusions. He said the study should have lasted at least a full year, since each season “has an impact on what happens to pollutants and where they fall.” 

“I think from the beginning, this initiative was oversold,” Hess said. 

Some health care professionals said CNX can’t reasonably make such sweeping conclusions without studying the health conditions of people living near the pollutants. 

“The correct conclusion is that they failed to detect the five chemicals that they were looking for in very high concentrations,” said Dr. Ned Ketyer, president of Physicians for Social Responsibility Pennsylvania, a nonprofit advocacy group. “That’s the only thing that they can conclude. They can’t conclude that fracking is safe.”
 


“Their ‘radical transparency’ idea is really not at all transparent.”

~ Dr. Ned Ketyer, president, Physicians for Social Responsibility Pennsylvania

 
One of the two sites surveyed in the project drew the attention of government officials as recently as March, when Department of Environmental Protection inspectors visited the site after receiving complaints from a resident about suspected water contamination — a category of pollution that CNX has committed to studying but did not account for in “Radical Transparency.” The state’s Department of Environmental Protection has not issued a notice of violation, but a spokesperson told Capital & Main that the resident’s complaint met “the conditions for creating a rebuttable presumption that a well operator is responsible for water pollution.” CNX disputed the claim. Following the inspection, CNX was ordered to install an alternate water source for the resident while the investigation continues.

“Their ‘radical transparency’ idea is really not at all transparent,” Ketyer said. 

Ketyer said he believes CNX’s rosy report was issued not as a good faith effort to advance science, but to appease investors ahead of a ratings downgrade from investment bank Piper Sandler, which came the day after CNX issued its release. 

Dr. Kathleen Nolan, co-author of the compendium on the risks of fracking and co-founder of Concerned Health Professionals of New York, said CNX’s report does not note whether there was a third-party review, which is standard for scientific papers. Though the emissions data may have averaged out to an acceptable level, they tended to spike in ways that Nolan believes would have been worth investigating. It is unclear whether CNX did that, and the gas producer did not respond to Capital & Main’s requests for comment. 

“Using real time continuous readout is essential if you’re going to monitor particulate matter,” she said. But CNX’s study is simply “documenting something, but not necessarily intervening in a way to be protective.” 

Protection from pollution is what Shapiro’s office sought to provide Pennsylvania residents when it enlisted CNX in 2023 to “definitively” measure emissions and strengthen chemical disclosures at a selection of its wells. As part of the partnership, CNX also agreed to a suite of concessions that mimicked the eight recommendations in the 2020 grand jury report, which found that state regulators had failed to protect residents from the fracking boom. CNX agreed to move its fracking infrastructure an additional 100 feet beyond the legally mandated 500-foot distance from homes and 2,500-foot distance from hospitals and schools. The grand jury also recommended that oil and gas operators be required to identify all the chemicals used in their operations. CNX and other operators are generally allowed to redact the names of chemicals they consider to be “trade secrets.”

Environmentalists have urged Shapiro’s office to reject the CNX project and adopt the grand jury recommendations instead. 

“He’s completely ignoring residents near these CNX sites,” said Shannon Smith, executive director of the nonprofit environmental group FracTracker Alliance. “He knows damn well what the health risks and the impacts are. He’s articulated it in many words, many times as attorney general.”


Copyright 2024 Capital & Main

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

US is violating human rights laws by backing fossil fuels, say young activists in new petition

Petition says that US government’s protection of fossil fuel interests has put people in harm’s wayBy continuing to fund and support a fossil fuel-based energy system, the US is violating international law, a group of young people have argued to an international human rights body.The petition to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), filed late on Tuesday and shared exclusively with the Guardian, says that the government’s actions have violated the petitioners’ human rights. Continue reading...

By continuing to fund and support a fossil fuel-based energy system, the US is violating international law, a group of young people have argued to an international human rights body.The petition to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), filed late on Tuesday and shared exclusively with the Guardian, says that the government’s actions have violated the petitioners’ human rights.“The US’s actions over the past 50 years constitute an internationally wrongful act that implicate its international responsibility,” the petition to the Washington DC-based commission says.The IACHR, part of the Organization of American States, is a quasi-judicial body that reviews and investigates complaints about human rights violations, then issues reports with findings and recommendations to the accused states. Its recommendations are not legally binding.The plea comes after the publication of two strongly worded advisory opinions on the climate crisis from two top international courts. It was filed by 15 of the 21 youth climate activists who previously brought the groundbreaking federal climate lawsuit Juliana v US, which was effectively dismissed last year.“This petition is about truth and accountability,” said Levi, an 18-year-old petitioner who was eight years old when the Juliana case was filed. “For over 50 years, the US government has knowingly protected fossil fuel interests while putting people, especially young people, in harm’s way.”Young climate activists involved in the Juliana v US suit outside the supreme court in Washington DC on 18 September 2019. Some of the young activists involved in the new petition were part of the Juliana case. Photograph: Bloomberg/Getty ImagesLike Juliana, the new filing details the myriad ways that the climate crisis has caused the young petitioners to suffer. Levi, for instance, grew up in Florida on the Indialantic barrier island. He and his family were frequently forced to evacuate amid dangerous hurricanes; eventually, they became so severe and frequent that his parents decided relocating was the only option.“Part of why we left was so that my baby sister could grow up in a home with a smaller risk of flooding,” he said. “One of the most difficult moments was losing my school after it was permanently closed due to storm damage.”Levi and the other young activists accuse the US of breaching international human rights law, customary international law and the American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man – an international human rights instrument that guarantees economic, social and cultural rights, as well as equality under the law.The bid comes just after the release of an early July advisory opinion from the inter-American court of human rights (I/A Court HR), a separate human rights body which can issue binding recommendations but which the US does not recognize. The opinion said that the climate crisis carries “extraordinary risks” felt most by already-vulnerable populations, and that the American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man requires countries to set ambitious greenhouse gas-cutting targets.“Before that happened, we had already been planning to file this,” said Kelly Matheson, deputy director of global strategy at the non-profit law firm Our Children’s Trust, which is representing the petitioners. “The timing is pure serendipity.”The I/A Court HR opinion is nonbinding, and the US does not recognize the jurisdiction of the top court from which it came. However, international courts and commissions can draw on the opinions to interpret the law.By denying the plaintiffs “access to justice” – and by expanding fossil fuel production – the US is violating an array of rights guaranteed to the young activists, including the right to life, liberty and security; the right to health; the right to benefits of culture; and special protections for children.“We are bringing our case to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights because domestic courts would not hear the full story,” said Levi. “This petition is a statement that what has happened to us is not just unfortunate or political but that it is a violation of our human rights.”The petitioners also accuse the US of violating their right to a healthy climate, referencing another recent nonbinding advisory opinion on greenhouse gas emissions from the international court of justice – a United Nations top court. The young activists have been trapped in that violation since birth, Matheson said.“These young people were born into a climate emergency, they were born into a rights violation, and they have lived every single day with their right to a healthy climate system being infringed upon,” she said. “We could get to a healthy climate system by 2100 if we make changes, but even then, these young plaintiffs will live their entire lives without ever being able to fully enjoy and exercise their right to a healthy climate system … Their hope is that their children or their grandchildren might.”Filed in 2015, Juliana v US argued that the government violated the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights with pro-fossil fuel policies. Our Children’s Trust, which brought the case, made its final attempt to revive the case last year by asking the supreme court to allow the suit to proceed to trial in a lower court; its bid was denied in March.By denying the young challengers access to effective remedies to the climate crisis and thereby continually causing them harm, the courts failed to fulfill its international legal obligations, the new filing says.skip past newsletter promotionThe planet's most important stories. Get all the week's environment news - the good, the bad and the essentialPrivacy Notice: Newsletters may contain information about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. If you do not have an account, we will create a guest account for you on theguardian.com to send you this newsletter. You can complete full registration at any time. For more information about how we use your data see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotionThe US is also breaching its obligations by continuing to perpetuate a fossil fuel-based energy system, argues the petition to the IACHR.“The US government, the leading cumulative contributor to climate change, has caused real harm to our health, our homes, our cultures and our futures,” said Levi.With the new petition, the young activists are demanding “precautionary measures” aimed at protecting their rights and obligations, as well as a hearing. In their best-case scenario, the IACHR would visit the US to hear the stories of the petitioners, then hold a public hearing to allow them to present their evidence to the world, and finally declare that the US has committed “wrongful acts” and make recommendations to push the country to improve its behavior.“We want the commission to declare that these systemic actions have violated our rights under the American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man,” said Levi. “This would carry legal weight across the Americas and help set a precedent that governments can’t continue to violate our rights without consequences.”Michael Gerrard, an environmental law expert at Columbia University, said the commission the activists are petitioning tends to act slowly. The body took five years to review one pollution-focused complaint from a Louisiana community filed in 2005.If the commission issues strong recommendations for the US, he said, US officials will be under no obligation to follow it.“The Trump administration wouldn’t care what this commission says, but the next administration might,” he added.The petition follows news that planet-warming pollution from the US rose in the first half of 2025. It also comes amid widespread attacks on climate protections by the Trump administration, which has launched more than 150 anti-environmental and anti-renewable energy actions since retaking the White House in January.“We are bringing this petition forward now because the science is urgent, the harm is accelerating and our rights are still being violated,” said Levi.Our Children’s Trust has represented young people in an array of state and federal lawsuits. During a two-day hearing in Montana this month, young plaintiffs in one federal case argued that three of Trump’s pro-fossil fuel executive orders should be blocked. The law firm in 2023 notched a landmark win in the lawsuit Held v Montana, when a judge ruled that the state’s pro-fossil fuel policies violated a group of youth plaintiffs’ rights under the state’s constitution.Just hours before Our Children’s Trust filed the petition, Trump addressed the United Nations claiming that the climate crisis was the “greatest con job perpetrated on the world” and “a hoax made up by people with evil intentions”.“This courageous action aims to tell the truth and do something about it,” said James R May, of counsel to Our Children’s Trust.

How a Housing Skirmish in NYC Revealed a Secret Truth About NIMBYism

Fights over housing in New York City are nothing new, but this month the political antagonism to increasing housing stock and making the cost of living more affordable in general escalated to a whole new level. Instead of the usual lawsuits and procedural slow-walking that usually grind pro-housing efforts to a halt, opponents tried something far bolder: erasing a set of pro-housing ballot initiatives before voters could even see them.The proposals in question aim to rewrite the City Charter to confront New York’s housing crisis head-on, cutting through the maze of delays that makes building new homes nearly impossible. They’re broadly popular, curbing the power of individual council members to block projects and shortening drawn-out land-use reviews. But opponents found a powerful ally in Council Speaker Adrienne Adams, who pressed the Board of Elections to strike the measures from the ballot altogether, despite the fact that the board had no such power.The gambit failed, thanks to significant public backlash, but it was striking in how starkly it broke from the usual playbook. Anti-housing forces usually cloak themselves in process: lawsuits, appeals to democracy, endless environmental reviews. As New Republic contributor J. Dylan Sandifer described, it’s a type of proceduralism that provides a “performance of forward motion that, in reality, preserves the status quo.” But in this case, the well-worn pretense was dropped entirely. It was a brazen attempt to subvert both the law and the will of the voters—one that exposed something essential about NIMBYism’s true character.The standard arsenal of the anti-housing crowd is familiar to anyone who has waded into the land-use wars: Faced with a new housing proposal in their neighborhood, local residents organize a series of delay tactics and clever rhetoric. They hide behind lengthy land-use processes, stressing the importance of community input and control. They weaponize environmental review laws in court. They pack rooms at community meetings, creating a veneer of popular support.In recent years, especially with the rise of the “abundance” movement, more attention has been paid to the ways these political and legal processes are weaponized to block growth. In turn, the popular discourse has centered around a convenient narrative: Pro-housing activists are the enemies of process and community control, while their opponents are its defenders.There’s some truth in that, but it misses the deeper reality. As the Board of Elections fight revealed, anti-housing forces aren’t committed to process at all; they’re committed to outcomes. The moment procedure no longer protects the status quo, they abandon it, laying bare how process is not so much a principle as it is a tool of power, to be discarded whenever it fails to deliver the intended results.Take the saga over Haven Green in Nolita, a plan for 100 percent affordable senior housing on a city-owned vacant lot that city agencies had been pursuing for over a decade. Opponents threw up every obstacle they could, converting the lot into a quasi-public garden, and filing a string of lawsuits, including one that bizarrely claimed the lot qualified for protection under federal laws meant to safeguard historic works of art. They lost at virtually every level. And when the courts and regulators failed to deliver the outcome they wanted, they sought to short-circuit the process altogether, eventually securing a last-minute backroom deal, on the eve of election night, with a scandal-plagued Mayor Eric Adams.A similar story played out in the Seaport. A parking lot was slated for mixed-income housing, and opponents pulled every lever they could: environmental challenges, landmarks objections, lawsuits that climbed all the way to New York’s highest court. They lost at every turn. Yet instead of accepting the outcome, they pivoted to protests and began accusing local officials of orchestrating a corrupt conspiracy. Having failed within the system, they simply tried to delegitimize it.These episodes are hardly outliers. When the rules stop protecting the status quo, opponents routinely abandon them without hesitation, escalating the fight beyond law or normal politics. What was once defended as a sacred process, indispensable for democracy and community control, suddenly becomes disposable, swapped out for more audacious, often extra-procedural, tactics.Pro-housing advocates are often caricatured as market zealots, eager to bulldoze every safeguard in the name of unfettered growth. But this framing fundamentally misunderstands the reality of how these fights play out in real time. Again and again, it is their opponents who lose within the very procedures they celebrate—and then, unwilling to accept the outcome, they turn against the system itself.This is how power operates in local governance, whether the fight is over housing or any proposal that threatens the current state of affairs. Lawsuits, community meetings, environmental reviews; it’s not that these are inherently democratic or antidemocratic. They are merely instruments, and their meaning comes from how they’re used. Anti-housing forces use them not to ensure valuable deliberation but to obstruct it; rituals of legitimacy that mask the exercise of raw power. Let us take note: These episodes reveal an essential phoniness. Adherence to the rules has become, for NIMBYists, nothing more than a performance undertaken in the name of preserving scarcity and protecting the status quo by any means necessary.This is a convenient moment to take note of the true colors of those who’ve been standing athwart progress, citing procedure. As our nation’s intellectuals enter the national debate on abundance and growth, we need to reframe the discussion to match what’s happening at street level in our cities and towns. Because there, you won’t find a technocratic dispute over rules and processes, or a clash between defenders of democracy and free-market deregulators. Rather, you will find a struggle over power between those who bend laws and institutions to protect the wealthy and well-connected, and those who demand those laws be put to the use of serving the common good.

Fights over housing in New York City are nothing new, but this month the political antagonism to increasing housing stock and making the cost of living more affordable in general escalated to a whole new level. Instead of the usual lawsuits and procedural slow-walking that usually grind pro-housing efforts to a halt, opponents tried something far bolder: erasing a set of pro-housing ballot initiatives before voters could even see them.The proposals in question aim to rewrite the City Charter to confront New York’s housing crisis head-on, cutting through the maze of delays that makes building new homes nearly impossible. They’re broadly popular, curbing the power of individual council members to block projects and shortening drawn-out land-use reviews. But opponents found a powerful ally in Council Speaker Adrienne Adams, who pressed the Board of Elections to strike the measures from the ballot altogether, despite the fact that the board had no such power.The gambit failed, thanks to significant public backlash, but it was striking in how starkly it broke from the usual playbook. Anti-housing forces usually cloak themselves in process: lawsuits, appeals to democracy, endless environmental reviews. As New Republic contributor J. Dylan Sandifer described, it’s a type of proceduralism that provides a “performance of forward motion that, in reality, preserves the status quo.” But in this case, the well-worn pretense was dropped entirely. It was a brazen attempt to subvert both the law and the will of the voters—one that exposed something essential about NIMBYism’s true character.The standard arsenal of the anti-housing crowd is familiar to anyone who has waded into the land-use wars: Faced with a new housing proposal in their neighborhood, local residents organize a series of delay tactics and clever rhetoric. They hide behind lengthy land-use processes, stressing the importance of community input and control. They weaponize environmental review laws in court. They pack rooms at community meetings, creating a veneer of popular support.In recent years, especially with the rise of the “abundance” movement, more attention has been paid to the ways these political and legal processes are weaponized to block growth. In turn, the popular discourse has centered around a convenient narrative: Pro-housing activists are the enemies of process and community control, while their opponents are its defenders.There’s some truth in that, but it misses the deeper reality. As the Board of Elections fight revealed, anti-housing forces aren’t committed to process at all; they’re committed to outcomes. The moment procedure no longer protects the status quo, they abandon it, laying bare how process is not so much a principle as it is a tool of power, to be discarded whenever it fails to deliver the intended results.Take the saga over Haven Green in Nolita, a plan for 100 percent affordable senior housing on a city-owned vacant lot that city agencies had been pursuing for over a decade. Opponents threw up every obstacle they could, converting the lot into a quasi-public garden, and filing a string of lawsuits, including one that bizarrely claimed the lot qualified for protection under federal laws meant to safeguard historic works of art. They lost at virtually every level. And when the courts and regulators failed to deliver the outcome they wanted, they sought to short-circuit the process altogether, eventually securing a last-minute backroom deal, on the eve of election night, with a scandal-plagued Mayor Eric Adams.A similar story played out in the Seaport. A parking lot was slated for mixed-income housing, and opponents pulled every lever they could: environmental challenges, landmarks objections, lawsuits that climbed all the way to New York’s highest court. They lost at every turn. Yet instead of accepting the outcome, they pivoted to protests and began accusing local officials of orchestrating a corrupt conspiracy. Having failed within the system, they simply tried to delegitimize it.These episodes are hardly outliers. When the rules stop protecting the status quo, opponents routinely abandon them without hesitation, escalating the fight beyond law or normal politics. What was once defended as a sacred process, indispensable for democracy and community control, suddenly becomes disposable, swapped out for more audacious, often extra-procedural, tactics.Pro-housing advocates are often caricatured as market zealots, eager to bulldoze every safeguard in the name of unfettered growth. But this framing fundamentally misunderstands the reality of how these fights play out in real time. Again and again, it is their opponents who lose within the very procedures they celebrate—and then, unwilling to accept the outcome, they turn against the system itself.This is how power operates in local governance, whether the fight is over housing or any proposal that threatens the current state of affairs. Lawsuits, community meetings, environmental reviews; it’s not that these are inherently democratic or antidemocratic. They are merely instruments, and their meaning comes from how they’re used. Anti-housing forces use them not to ensure valuable deliberation but to obstruct it; rituals of legitimacy that mask the exercise of raw power. Let us take note: These episodes reveal an essential phoniness. Adherence to the rules has become, for NIMBYists, nothing more than a performance undertaken in the name of preserving scarcity and protecting the status quo by any means necessary.This is a convenient moment to take note of the true colors of those who’ve been standing athwart progress, citing procedure. As our nation’s intellectuals enter the national debate on abundance and growth, we need to reframe the discussion to match what’s happening at street level in our cities and towns. Because there, you won’t find a technocratic dispute over rules and processes, or a clash between defenders of democracy and free-market deregulators. Rather, you will find a struggle over power between those who bend laws and institutions to protect the wealthy and well-connected, and those who demand those laws be put to the use of serving the common good.

Intelligence agencies should report on foreign interests in ‘activist groups’, Australian coal lobby group argues

Coal Australia also wants government to broaden restrictions on foreign donations to stop money flowing to environmental groupsAn Australian coal industry lobby group wants national intelligence agencies to report on any involvement of foreign interests in unnamed “activist groups” it claims are attempting to undermine the nation’s prosperity.Coal Australia also wants the government to broaden restrictions on foreign donations to stop money being channelled to Australia-based environmental groups and create powers to terminate grants and rescind charity status to organisations who aren’t transparent about funding sources. Continue reading...

An Australian coal industry lobby group wants national intelligence agencies to report on any involvement of foreign interests in unnamed “activist groups” it claims are attempting to undermine the nation’s prosperity.Coal Australia also wants the government to broaden restrictions on foreign donations to stop money being channelled to Australia-based environmental groups and create powers to terminate grants and rescind charity status to organisations who aren’t transparent about funding sources.The wave of demands are outlined in one of almost 150 submissions to a parliamentary inquiry examining the prevalence of climate change-related misinformation and disinformation.The lobby group, whose members include Whitehaven and Yancoal, argue that Australia’s prosperity was being “compromised” by unnamed activist groups backed by foreign donors.It recommended that the federal electoral and intelligence agencies be required to submit a joint report to parliament each year on the supposed threats to Australia’s energy security, including from “malicious” foreign interference and the dissemination of misinformation and disinformation.The submission did not name specific agencies but the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation is responsible for monitoring foreign interference.The first report should include an audit of all funding to the groups, it continued, which are not captured under existing foreign donation rules.“Such reporting would also ensure maximum community awareness and vigilance of manipulative and deceptive campaign tactics,” the chief executive of Coal Australia, Stuart Bocking, wrote.The coal lobby’s push came as the Human Rights Commission and environmental groups warned the inquiry of the corrosive influence of climate changed-related mis- and disinformation.The commission said false narratives about climate change delay urgent action to combat global heating, erode trust in science and institutions and distort the public’s understanding of the challenge.“False claims about climate change, shared either in good faith or deceptively, can result in community polarisation, decreased support for climate-change mitigation policies and obstruction of political action,” the submission read.“This undermines public information and debate, which in turn affects the realisation of the human right to a healthy, clean and sustainable environment.”The commission recommended the Albanese government pursue laws to combat the spread of misinformation and disinformation online after abandoning plans in the last term of parliament due to a lack of political support.However, it said any new laws must have the “upmost regard for free speech”, suggesting the previous attempt failed to strike the right balance.In another submission, the Environment Defenders’ Office called for a blanket national ban on fossil fuel advertising as recommended by the UN special rapporteur on climate change, Elisa Morgera.Morgera lodged her own submission to the inquiry, which summarised other recommendations to governments put forward in other reports. That included the criminalisation of “greenwashing” by fossil fuel companies and amplification of it by media companies.“There is a need for states to reckon with the impacts of climate disinformation tactics and the prolonged six-decade failure to take effective climate action, compounded by widespread misinformation,” she wrote.“In order to support an informed, transparent and participatory process for defossilization, states need to ‘defossilize’ information systems, to protect human rights in the formation of public opinion and debate from the long-standing undue commercial influence of the fossil fuel industry.”The inquiry will hold its first public hearing on 29 September.A final report is due on 4 February.

Climate activists gather in New York for ‘Sun Day’ solar energy and anti-billionaire rallies

Sun Day national action supported renewable energy, day after ‘Make Billionaires Pay’ march ahead of Climate WeekHundreds of environmentalists gathered in New York City’s Stuyvesant Square Park and a nearby Quaker meeting house on Sunday to rally in support of solar power and other forms of renewable energy. The event was part of a national “day of action” billed Sun Day, founded by veteran environmental activist Bill McKibben and first Earth Day coordinator Denis Hayes.“It’s so sad to watch the sun going to waste,” McKibben said at a press conference, standing beside environmentalists and their children. “Every single day, energy from heaven going to waste while we drill down to hell for another dose of the stuff that is wrecking this planet.” Continue reading...

Hundreds of environmentalists gathered in New York City’s Stuyvesant Square Park and a nearby Quaker meeting house on Sunday to rally in support of solar power and other forms of renewable energy. The event was part of a national “day of action” billed Sun Day, founded by veteran environmental activist Bill McKibben and first Earth Day coordinator Denis Hayes.“It’s so sad to watch the sun going to waste,” McKibben said at a press conference, standing beside environmentalists and their children. “Every single day, energy from heaven going to waste while we drill down to hell for another dose of the stuff that is wrecking this planet.”McKibben was joined at the press conference by other activists, as well as officials from New York and his home state of Vermont.“We have the ability here to protect our children, to protect our future,” said New York’s lieutenant governor, Antonio Delgado.The event in the park followed an all-afternoon celebration of clean power, with displays of solar panels, child-friendly lessons on renewable technology, and panel discussions. One popular panel featured McKibben and New York City’s comptroller, Brad Lander.In other parts of the country, activists held more than 500 other actions meant to highlight the creative ways Americans are ditching fossil-based energy. In Virginia, volunteers climbed rooftops to install solar panels on affordable homes built by Habitat for Humanity. In North Carolina, families gathered at a farm powered by solar panels. And in Michigan, organizers held a car show to show off electric vehicles; families also held a beach clean up nearby.Renewable energy sources have seen unprecedented growth in recent years. Last year, they accounted for over 90% of total energy expansion globally, one analysis found. And the US generated less than half of its energy from fossil fuels for the first time this past March.Yet the day of action came amid unprecedented attacks on climate protections and the renewable energy transition by the Trump administration. Since January, his administration has rolled back grants for solar, kicked off an all-of-government approach to shut down wind, halted and delayed wind projects, and launched more than 150 other anti-environmental and anti-renewable energy actions. The plans are threatening not only the climate but also Americans’ pocketbooks, said Vermont senator Peter Welch.“Clean energy is really good for affordability. It lowers the utility bills people are struggling to pay and creates really good jobs,” Welch said in an interview. “What Trump is doing is wrecking that economic potential. Customers are going to get hammered.”Despite these attacks, the event had an overall air of optimism. McKibben said though the US is backsliding on climate progress, much of the rest of the world is continuing to build out renewable power.“The pattern around the world is unmistakable,” he said in an interview. “The reason that it’s happening is partly because of the climate crisis but also largely because this is the cheapest form of energy, and it’s getting cheaper every year.”The Sun Day action came ahead of Climate Week in New York City, an annual event that convenes government officials, corporate actors and activists for a vast array of climate-focused events. It also came one day after the “Make Billionaires Pay” march, for which 25,000 people took to the streets in New York City.“Billionaires caused the climate chaos, spearheaded the rise of authoritarianism and they continue to profit from our suffering. But they forgot one thing: there are more of us than there are of them,” said Renata Pumarol, an organizer with the environmental justice non-profit Climate Defenders, in a statement about the Saturday protest.Sun Day participants did not shy away from naming the fossil fuel companies who have been the primary cause of global warming. But it focused largely on solutions aimed at taking on the climate crisis instead of the actors behind it.McKibben, for instance, praised Utah’s move three months ago to legalize the installation of solar panels on balconies – something that is illegal in all other US states. And New York assemblymember Emily Gallagher previewed a state bill she will introduce next week aimed at helping renters access solar panels.At the press conference, McKibben noted that though the forecast for Sunday showed cloudy skies, the day was bright and warm.“The collective power of all of us is enough to bring out the sun,” he said.

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.