Remembering Sherwood Rowland

    “Is it enough for a scientist simply to publish a paper? Isn’t it a responsibility of scientists, if you believe that you have found something that can affect the environment, isn’t it your responsibility to actually do something about it, enough so that action actually takes place?” 

That's what Nobel prize-winning chemist F. Sherwood Rowland asked a White House climate change roundtable in 1997. He challenged scientists to speak out on environmental issues. As he said, “If not us, who? If not now, when?” Read more.

PR Firm Disses Environmentalists

 

Greg Matusky, founder and president of Gregory FCA, is a PR guy. His company, located in the suburbs just west of Philadelphia, is ranked “one of the nation’s top 30 PR agencies” – at least that’s what he claims on his website.

Yesterday Matusky posted an essay about how the image of Marcellus Shale seems to have hit some headwinds in the court of public opinion. A bit of a mixed metaphor, but we get the picture.

“Are we winning or losing the public relations battle on Marcellus Shale?” Matusky asks. After noting the downward slope in public opinion about drilling, he lists six steps the gas industry must take to win the PR battle for the hearts and minds of energy-hungry Americans.

The industry, Matusky says, needs to focus on publishing the facts – and lots of them. They need to stop responding to negative criticism, focus media stories on the people that the industry helps, dominate the online discussion, put things in context (he says “connect the dots”), and control the language.

“Fracking” is not a good word, says Matusky; it has too many negative connotations.

Those who think “fracking” perfectly captures what industrial shalegas production is all about have no quarrel with Matusky’s advice to the industry – it’s pretty standard for any group waging a public relations campaign.

They do, however, take exception to the way he paints gas industry critics. The problem isn’t Marcellus shale, says Matusky. It’s that “naysayers -- who often aren't under the same time constraint as gainfully employed Americans -- have more idle time to plant falsehoods, raise suspicions, and demonize the oil and gas industry.”

In one highly charged sentence Matusky pretty much dismisses the hard-working, environmentally concerned attorneys, journalists, bloggers, farmers, teachers, county supervisors, scientists, engineers, geologists, highway department workers, loggers, viticulturists, ranchers, social services workers and hunting guides who want the pace of drilling slowed down.

He certainly can’t be referring the high school teacher from Upstate NY who told me that for the past three years he has devoted what little time he has left after a busy week in the classroom to write letters and attend hearings.

For sure Matusky can’t mean the financial services representative who not only works full time but put himself through school to earn additional licenses for his job.

No way can Matusky be referring to full-time stay-at-home parents who are sacrificing their future earnings and 401K’s to raise the next generation while juggling farm chores and home-based work. Writes one such farmer, “What about those of us who value well-being as opposed to having lots of cash?”

What exactly is Matusky implying, she asks? Is he implying that people who work two jobs from home are not doing their research on the topic? Is he implying that only highly-paid PR firms can do that kind of work? Or, she asks, “is he implying that the ‘gainfully employed’ are pro-drilling? Is he inferring that the ‘gainfully employed’ don't engage in social movements?”

Maybe he’s referring to the elected representatives in Congress who fully support the EPA’s study of hydro-fracking, and who are asking the oil and gas industry to pay for the Gulf spill clean-up.

Do we Still Have the Freedom to Protest?

They don't bring guns to meetings, they don't throw stones - heck, the most outrageous thing they've done so far is to don costumes and show up at rallies with posters. But for some reason they've been targeted by the Pennsylvania's Intelligence Bulletin as "groups to watch".

Who are these people? Moms, artists, municipal leaders, scientists, landowners ..... people who just want to protect their drinking water from contamination by hydro-fracturing chemicals. And for some reason - who knows why - the Pennsylvania Office of Homeland Security has labeled people who actively talk about issues affecting their community, and who advocate for their elected officials to take action, as "environmental extremists" - folks who (according to the FBI) might somehow pose an increasing threat to the energy industry. 

The Pennsylvania Intelligence Bulletin is nothing new, but last October the PA Office of Homeland Security outsourced intelligence-gathering activities to the Institute of Terrorism Research and Response (ITRR). 

What POHS wanted: solid information aimed at preventing terrorist attacks on “critical infrastructure” in the state.What POHS received:  information, gleaned from the internet and other open sources, about tea party rallies, gay pride parades and community meetings where citizens discussed their concerns about drilling in the Marcellus shale.

According to the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania (ACLU-PA) the intelligence bulletin was distributed to government and law enforcement officials, universities, gas drilling companies and industry lobbyists. What are they worried about? That the anti-drilling folks will share information regarding which companies are involved in drilling in the area? Heck - go to any landowner coalition meeting and you hear the same things! Of course people are talking about who's drilling, where the rigs are and how to prepare for it. 

Every week ITRR listed “natural gas drilling events that may draw unruly crowds” in the PA Intel Bull. Their events included watershed meetings, town commissioner meetings, a music festival, the Cabot community picnic, the PA Forestry Association meeting and, of course, the Binghamton EPA meeting originally scheduled for August 12. In most of the bulletins they lump citizens into two groups: “environmental activists and militants” or “landowners and industry representatives”. Sorry all you environmentally-concerned landowners - in ITRR's eyes there is no in-between.

In one bulletin ITRR warns that the group intending to “force pressure tactics” on the EPA is a “loose organization of New York landowners who are in favor of natural gas drilling…” They back this up with selected quotes from an e-mail that was widely circulated by landowner's groups: “EPA is coming to hear from you!” it said; show up and “be seen in solid support of gas development”.

Their bigger concern, of course, was the fear of a large anti-drilling activist turn-out at the EPA meeting. ITRR based their warning for this huge turn-out on activist alerts circulating on the list-serves of Shaleshock (Ithaca), ROUSE (Brooktondale) and NYRAD (NY Residents Against Drilling, in Binghamton).

“Shaleshock is basically a list-serve and an educational resource,” says Lisa Wright. She describes herself as a concerned citizen, finding it hard to get her mind around the "extremist" label ITRR has slapped on the group. "It's pathetic that PA Homeland Security diverted resources to monitoring mostly middle-aged women in comfortable shoes who were planning to attend a hearing to exercise their First Amendment rights,”she says.

Bill Podulka, a founding father of ROUSE is equally stymied by ITRR’s attention. “It is absolutely ludicrous that Homeland Security was monitoring these groups and their listserves,” Podulka says. “Exercising our rights of free speech and freedom of peaceful assembly should not draw the attention of anti-terrorist officials.  I thought we had out-grown this kind of McCarthy-era thinking.”

In the days since news of the intelligence bulletins leaked to the press, PA Governor Edward Rendell has apologized for the unwarranted snooping into citizen gatherings and canceled the contract with ITRR. The PA Senate Veterans Affairs & Emergency Preparedness Committee subpoenaed administrators in Office of Homeland Security to testify, and PA law enforcement has basically dismissed the ITRR information as worthless.

Meanwhile, ACLU-PA has filed a Right to Know request asking for all records related to the anti-terrorism bulletins that included information about activists involved in lawful protests. They are also calling for a full investigation by an independent party.

You can read the PA Intelligence Bulletins at http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/homeland_security/14251/pa_intelligence_bulletins/771845

If you or your group believes you have been targeted by these bulletins, the ACLU suggests that you file a Right to Know request. They have templates on their website and they promise to provide assistance to anyone who encounters difficulties during the process. For help, go to http://www.aclupa.org/issues/freespeech/filearighttoknowrequest or call 215-592-1513.